Sitting of 2 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 4 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Young Persons (Training)
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people entering employment for the first time receive training from their employers.
    The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): The latest evidence that we have on the training of 16-year-old school leavers in full-time employment shows that 65 per cent. receive training in their jobs. That figure comes from the 1986 youth cohort study.
    Ms. Mowlam: I thank the Minister for that information. Will he provide similar details for 16 to 18-year-olds starting in September? The Minister assured us that there would be sufficient places for 16 to 18-year-olds in Cleveland when I last asked this question in the House. What plans have been made to make those places available? If those places are not available—and we in Cleveland believe that they will not be available—will benefit be available to those youngsters if there is no training?
    Mr. Cope: The original question referred to young people entering employment. for the first time. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the youth training scheme. At present there are more than 100,000 vacant places on the youth training scheme all over the country. With regard to the Christmas guarantee, well over 99 per cent. of young people who required a YTS place had one by last Christmas. We have every reason to suppose that we shall do better this year.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that business men in Chelmsford have a record second to none in training their young workers? Is he also aware that young people in Chelmsford warmly welcome YTS because it provides them with training and valuable work experience?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, and that is the experience of YTS trainees all over the country. More than 80 per cent. of them find it very worth while.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister not worried that, as some young people experience more employment opportunities, the bad old days are returning, because employers are taking 16-year-olds off YTS and offering them no training? If we have to make it compulsory for young people to enter youth training, is it not about time that we compelled employers to train every 16-year-old, at least until the age of 18? When will we enter that kind of league?
    Mr. Cope: I thought that the Opposition were against compulsory training. The number of 16 and 17-year-old unemployed school leavers is at its lowest level since 1974, and that is a good thing. As I have just told the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), two thirds of those in employment are being trained.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of young people receiving training in their first job is higher in the north of England than elsewhere? Will

    837
    he also confirm that the proportion of people on YTS who enter jobs, and so on, after leaving the scheme is about 75 per cent.?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, both those facts are correct.

    Job Training Scheme (Child Care)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many single parents are now receiving payments under the pilot job training scheme child care provisions.
    Mr. Cope: There are seven single parents on the new job training scheme who are receiving payments for child care provision under the pilot scheme.
    Mrs. Mahon: What does the Minister intend to do about this disgraceful con trick that has been perpetrated on single parents? He knows full well that to qualify and be available for work they must lose £9 in long-term benefit. Will he change that disgraceful situation?
    Mr. Cope: We shall review the pilot scheme when it ends later this month. I stress that it is only a pilot scheme at the moment. The hon. Lady's question relates to the eligibility for the new job training scheme. We have placed those who have been looking for work for six months or more at the head of our priorities. Those are the right priorities.
    Ms. Richardson: Why is it a pilot scheme? The pilot scheme is operating in 10 JTS areas. A large number of single parents and other single people are on JTS. What are the Minister and his Department doing to ensure that single parents, whether women or men, know about the availability of child care payments? Seven is an appallingly low figure. What will happen when JTS is merged with the community programme? The Minister said that he would not extend the payments. Does that mean that he is against helping single parents to work and train?
    Mr. Cope: I did not say that. I said that we will review the pilot scheme when it finishes at the end of this month, and look into the valid questions that the hon. Lady has asked. As for the new scheme, the hon. Lady must await the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend will publish shortly.

    Job Vacancies
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of job vacancies in England and Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): On 4 December 1987 the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in England and Wales was 219,100. That was an increase of 23 per cent. on the figure for December 1986. Vacancies notified to jobcentres have increased each year since 1981.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind that the substantial increase in job vacancies must demonstrate the success of the Government's economic policies, does my right hon. Friend agree that more people would find jobs, and more vacancies would be filled, if the Government and industry together took vigorous action to deal with skill shortages —particularly in areas such as Norwich, where they are a real problem?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are still skill shortages in some areas, although they are not as bad as they were in the 1970s. I also agree that that shows the need for skills, particularly among the long-term unemployed, and underlines the importance of the new adult training programme that we are about to launch.
    Mr. Cryer: Are not the majority of vacancies in the service industries—in low-paid jobs—and does that not hide the fact that we have lost 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry since 1979, which accounts for the massive balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods that the country now faces as part of the current economic crisis?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman, not untypically, has got the position entirely wrong. Vacancies in manufacturing industry increased by 39 per cent. between November 1986 and November 1987. The equivalent increase for service sector vacancies was 23 per cent.
    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in Corby the number of job vacancies advertised each month is comfortably in excess of 500, which is more than 20 per cent. up on a year ago? Will he also bear in mind that virtually all those vacancies are in the manufacturing sector and carry high pay with good prospects? Will he do all that he can to see that what has happened in my constituency is extended to other areas?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Vacancies have increased in the service industries —which, of course, are very important to the country—but they have also shown a welcome increase in manufacturing industry. The challenge now is to find the skilled people to fill those vacancies.
    Mr. Meacher: I wonder whether the House is aware that today is the Secretary of State's 50th birthday and that the Opposition offer him their congratulations on this important milestone on the way to his early retirement?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the story in The Guardian today that, in four inner London boroughs, if an unemployed person refuses a job, his benefit will be withdrawn? Does that not take us a big step further down the road towards American Workfare in Britain? Does that not indeed follow from the creeping compulsion that we have already seen over Restart, YTS benefit withdrawal and the powers in the current Employment Bill to force people on to the adult training programme? Will it not simply encourage the worst employers in the dregs of the market to offer skimpily-paid jobs with no prospects to a captive labour force?
    Mr. Fowler: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I have always regarded 50 as an age when young men have their careers entirely before them.
    It is sad that, even on my birthday, the hon. Gentleman is typically getting his facts entirely wrong again. The Guardian story that he has quoted is wrong. No instructions have been issued to compel people to take jobs in the boroughs of Camden, Kensington or Chelsea. There are no pilot schemes in operation and none is contemplated for those boroughs. The law has always provided that unemployed people may lose their benefit, or have it reduced, if they refuse a suitable job. That law was confirmed in the Social Security Act 1975, which was

    839
    passed by the previous Labour Government, in which the hon. Gentleman was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Marlow: Given the growing number of jobs available, and given that there are a large number of idle and indolent people who are not prepared to take those jobs, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the law that he has just announced to Parliament is more strictly and effectively put into effect?
    Mr. Fowler: The law on availability for work will be, and has been, enforced in the lifetime of this Government. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, with what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said. There can be no excuse for people who refuse jobs when jobs are available. Availability for work is a simple condition of benefit, and the Government will continue to enforce it. However, I deny the report in The Guardian, which is plainly wrong.

    Mines (Women)
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions in Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" have called for the repeal of section 124(1) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and section 21(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits the employment of women below ground in mines.
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions in Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" have called for the repeal of section 4 of the Factories Act 1961, which prohibits the employment of women and young persons in certain processes connected wilth lead manufacture in factories.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): No responses have been received to date concerning section 124(1) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and section 21(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
    The relevant section of the Factories Act 1961 is section 74. No responses have been received to date on this either. The closing date for comment on the consultative document is 29 February.
    Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister aware that the repeal of those sections, combined with the removal of the protective legislation in the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, could lead to women being employed underground again? We on the Labour Benches have grave fears that that might happen, especially in view of Mrs. Thatcher's espousal of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We refer to each other by our titles here.
    Mr. Rogers: We have grave fears that that might happen, in view of the Prime Minister's espousal of Victorian values and the obvious support of those wet-necked twits that the Minister has behind him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not unparliamentary, but I think a sight unnecessary.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman phrases his question with his usual elegance and charm. I am bound to tell him
    840
    that we are concerned only to ensure that the available protections are necessary and, fulfil the task that they set themselves to fulfil. If, at the end of the day, the representations that we receive on the consultative document show that there are no grounds, on the basis of health and safety, to prevent women from being employed underground, I would find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman would deny to women the opportunities that he is prepared to concede to men.
    Ms. Walley: In view of the Minister's reply to that question, will he give an absolute assurance that women will not be required to work in areas where their health could be substantially put at risk?
    Mr. Nicholls: When we are considering the representations on the consultative document, what will guide us will be whether the exisiting legislation achieves the effect of protecting women. If we find that in particular cases it is necessary to retain legislation, because of the particular health considerations of women, such legislation will be retained. The point is to keep necessary legislation that does protect, not legislation that simply discriminates against women because they are women.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have now smoked out the Opposition? Their posturing in favour of equality for women is simply no longer true, if, indeed, it ever was. Does my hon. Friend also agree that they appear to want to deny to women the opportunities that are available to men? What does he propose to do about that?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend asks what I shall do. To try to sort out the inconsistencies of the Labour party's position is beyond any of us. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) set out the position very fairly. I wondered whether he had cleared that line of question with the Valkyrie tendency in his party.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no females will be required to work underground, unless they apply for the job? Should we assume, from the posturing of Labour Members, that the Labour party is against equal opportunities?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend draws attention to a strange position. The Labour party has quite properly demanded that there should not be discrimination against women, but it is quite prepared to say, without advancing any evidence for the proposition, that opportunities to work underground will be an exclusively male preserve. It is extremely difficult to understand its attitude.

    Job Vacancies
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of job vacancies in Yorkshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): On 4 December 1987 the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in Yorkshire was 13,200—a 21 per cent. increase on the past year. However, only about one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. It clearly and conclusively shows that the Government's economic policy is having a strong effect

    841
    south of England but all over the country, and in particular in Yorkshire. Arising from that answer, will he advise us of its effect on the levels of employment in Yorkshire and in my constituency, Leeds, North-East.
    Mr. Lee: Unemployment in Leeds, North-East has fallen by about 700 in the past year.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister agree that in the main those figures were registered in North Yorkshire and in the area in which the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) is located, West Yorkshire? Unemployment remains well above the national average in South Yorkshire and on Humberside. Will the Minister say why, under the Government, South Yorkshire has received more money from Europe for infrastructure projects than it has received through its assisted area status?
    Mr. Lee: European funding is not a question for me. With regard to funding under the urban programme in 1987–88, Yorkshire and Humberside received £25 million in total. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's earlier point that the problems are worse in certain parts of Yorkshire than in others, but that is because of the decline in traditional industries.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that if those seeking to fill vacancies in Yorkshire do not find a job of their choice, over the border in Lancashire they would find an equally appetising array of vacancies and training available?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is correct. There are some vacancies in Lancashire, but we are aware of the problem of mobility in terms of house prices.
    Mr. Strang: Surely the Minister is aware that at present there are 250,000 unemployed people chasing 16,000 vacancies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Is he suggesting that that is a satisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. Lee: I am suggesting that the position is steadily improving, and that over the past 18 months it has done so nationally as well as in Yorkshire.

    Confectionery Industry
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in the numbers of employees in the confectionery industry.
    Mr. Lee: Over the 12 months to September 1987 the number of employees in the confectionery industry fell by 1,000 to 180,000.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the trend in employment was considerably higher when confectionery had the same VAT rating as other foods? Will he hold discussions with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget so that consideration might be given to rerating, especially as 6 or 7 per cent. more people could be taken on in the confectionery industry in efficient firms, such as Rowntree, Terry and Craven?
    Mr. Lee: I know how important the confectionery industry is to my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that Treasury Ministers will be made aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made about VAT.
    842
    I recently discussed with Rowntree its planned tourism attraction—the chocolate experience. I discovered that the industry is doing pretty well and that no fewer than 40 KitKats are consumed in Britain every second.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unadjusted unemployment figures for school leavers; and if he will give the equivalent figure for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    Mr. Fowler: On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 who had not entered employment since leaving full-time education was 63,700. This is the lowest December figure since 1979, when it totalled some 30,500.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that YTS places are not regarded as real jobs? The pay is certainly paltry and the places seem to be a mere device to keep young people off the unemployment register. In those circumstances, why threaten those same young people with loss of their supplementary benefit if they fail to take up the places?
    Mr. Fowler: Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is rather out of date in his view of YTS. YTS now leads to about 60 per cent. of people going into jobs and a further 15 per cent. are going into training and education. On supplementary benefit, the Government intend to guarantee that anyone leaving school can go into a job or have a YTS place. It seems to us that it is not realistic or sensible to allow supplementary benefit to be a further option.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend compare the figure that he has given to the House with the equivalent figure for 12 months earlier—December 1986 —and the corresponding figure of five years ago?
    Mr. Fowler: As I said, the figures have been coming down. In December 1986 the figure was 88,000 and five years before, in 1981, it was 122,000. The trend is unquestionably downwards.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that there will be zero unemployed school leavers next year because, cynically and dishonestly, the Government are abolishing the right to benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds? Therefore, unemployment in that age group will disappear. Young people will be forced into YTS places which will sometimes be inappropriate. They will be unable to wait for a real job or choose to study for O and A-levels while on benefit, which 30,000 young people did last year. How can the Government possibly justify this crude abolition of freedom of choice in career and life for young people at the beginning of their working lives? Is it part of the Government's master plan to abolish unemployment by forcing the unemployed to work for their benefits?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady has been rehearsing those arguments in Committee for the past two months and she is being equally absurd this afternoon. The worst way of starting one's adult career is by going down to the supplementary benefit office and drawing social security.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State now give a guarantee to all young people on YTS that there will be a real job for them when they finish?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that we can guarantee a place on YTS to every school leaver. He also knows that the number now going into jobs is increasing and that in many places it is now more than 80 per cent. That is the progress that is being made and that is the commitment to YTS.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Air Force is taking many young boys on YTS? Thousands of them have been accepted. A substantial number of them would not normally have been up to the standard acceptable to the RAF, but events have shown that many of them reach the acceptable standard, get a good training and end up with real jobs.
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is a good scheme, and there are many other examples all round the country. We need to develop schemes in the public sector, but the armed forces scheme is already making substantial progress.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present rate of unemployment within the Rotherham-Mexborough travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Lee: On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed, was 18·9 per cent.
    Mr. Hardy: Given the deplorable situation in the area, the fact that official statistics seem particularly inaccurate or irrelevant in the Dearne valley area, the approach of further and horrendous job losses through colliery closures, and particularly through the deceitful and deplorable closure of the Canning Town glassworks at Swinton in my constituency, what action will the Minister take to ensure that the supposed economic miracle being experienced by Britain does not pass this area by entirely unremarked?
    Mr. Lee: I acknowledge that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's travel-to-work area and constituency is worse than in the region generally. I acknowledged that when I replied to his recent Adjournment debate. Nevertheless, things are improving. There has been a fall in the number unemployed of 3,057 over the past 12 months, and there has also been a 30 per cent. rise in jobcentre vacancies. There have been several encouraging features in the area, such as the Rotherham enterprise zone, which has been a great success.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he proposes to reduce the numbers of long-term unemployed.
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss programmes for the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Fowler: In the 12 months to October 1987 there was a fall in long-term unemployment of 169,000, the biggest fall of long-term unemployment on record. The Government will continue to give high priority to helping the long-term unemployed and I plan to meet the
    844
    chairman of the Manpower Services Commission later this month to discuss the new adult training programme which will offer improved training opportunities to some 600,000 unemployed people each year.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Although these falls in unemployment are welcome, does the Secretary of State accept that the proportion of unemployed who have been unemployed for a long period is increasing and that something must be done about this in the longer term? Will his Department consider targeting long-term unemployment black spots, even on a pilot basis, by reducing national insurance contributions?
    Mr. Fowler: We have reduced national insurance contributions for the lower paid, but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I accept the hon. Gentleman's concern about the long-term unemployed. I hope that he and his party will hack the new adult training programme, which aims to get the long-term unemployed back into work.
    Dr. Godman: At his proposed meeting with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission later this month, will the Secretary of State discuss the case made by many community programme providers that there should be an increase in the average wage for those on community programme schemes? Is it not the case that, if these wages had risen at the rate of inflation, those on such schemes would be earning an average weekly wage of approximately £85, instead of the current wage of approximately £67?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are moving to a new system of payment in the adult training programme, which will come into being in the autumn. People will be paid a premium over and above their benefit entitlement, and for the first time, therefore, there will be an incentive to family men with children to come into the adult training programme.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main hope for the long-term unemployed is an increase in job opportunities? Will he tell the House the increase in the number of people employed since 1983, and does he agree that one of the biggest menaces for job opportunities is unnecessary strikes in British industry?
    Mr. Fowler: Almost 1·5 million new jobs have been created. The House will agree with my hon. Friend's second point. A formidable industrial recovery has taken place in this country, but such advances will be put at risk if we go back to the appalling days of the 1970s when industrial strife reached its culmination in the winter of discontent of 1978–79.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to refine the mechanisms for sorting out those who have genuine difficulty in finding work from those who are less intimately motivated to look for it?
    Mr. Fowler: As I said in reply to an earlier question, certainly in regard to availability for work, such checks will continue, but the purpose of the adult training programme is to provide good training opportunities for long-term unemployed people who, in many cases, have been out of work for many months and whom we want to bring back into work.
    Mr. Leighton: Has the Secretary of State yet had a chance to read the report of the Select Committee on Employment in the previous Parliament, which made recommendations which would have guaranteed a job to all long-term unemployed people?
    Mr. Fowler: I must confess that I have not gone through it in the detail that I would have liked, but, as I spent two hours with the Select Committee on Employment last week, I think that I am aware of the proposals that the Select Committee made then. I do not think that that particular proposal is practical. What is practical are the kind of opportunities that we shall be able to offer under the adult training programme. I hope that the Select Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is Chairman, will give our adult training programme unanimous backing, just as the Manpower Services Commission did.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: How many of the long-term unemployed does my hon. Friend estimate to be virtually unemployable? Does he share my sense of congratulation that more of those eligible for employment are employed in Britain than in any other EEC country–66 per cent.?
    Mr. Fowler: It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make such an estimate, but, as my hon. Friend points out, it is certainly the case that in Britain a high percentage of the population are in work and that that bears good comparison with virtually all our European partners.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, contrary to the complacent assurances that he has given the House, the hard core of long-term unemployed who have been out of a job for over five years has trebled in the past three years and there are now well over 250,000 of them? Is he also aware that in the past year, when the number of short-term unemployed was falling, the number of long-term unemployed increased by over 20 per cent.? In view of that, since all else has failed, are the Government now proposing to use compulsion to take those people off the unemployment register?
    Mr. Fowler: We have already replied to the hon. Gentleman's point about compulsion, and we have emphasised that we have accepted the Manpower Services Commission's report on that. The number of those who have been unemployed for over five years has increased, and it is because of such developments that the new adult training programme is being put forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment in Britain has now come down dramatically, and it has come down in each of the past 18 months. The hon. Gentleman and the Opposition should acknowledge and praise that progress.

    Job Clubs
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job clubs are now open.
    Mr. Lee: At 20 January 1988 there were 1,159 job clubs in operation.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend share the encouraging impression that I have received in Bolton, where six such schemes are now in operation, that those entering job clubs, who have often lost all hope of obtaining a job, within a few weeks recover the confidence
    846
    and motivation that they need for success in the job market? How many people have been referred to jobs or training as a direct result of job clubs?
    Mr. Lee: I am delighted that my hon. Friend shares the experience that I have found in talking to those in individual job clubs, of which I have visited many throughout Britain. This has been one of our most successful programmes. About 72 per cent. of participants in internal job clubs that we run, and about 62 per cent. of participants in external job clubs, have gone into work or training or on the enterprise allowance scheme—an excellent overall figure.
    Mr. Corbett: What contribution does the Minister expect the job clubs to make to getting unemployment down to the level at which it was when the Government took office?
    Mr. Lee: The job clubs are playing a part. I gave my hon. Friend. the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) percentages, but in terms of absolute numbers about 45,000 people have been through our internal job clubs and nearly 30,000 have been through the external clubs. The percentages of those going to training or work are, as I said, 72 per cent. from the internal job clubs and 62 per cent. from the external ones. That is a substantial contribution.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the job clubs are widely welcomed by all who are looking for work? To what extent can he speed up the establishment of new job clubs? Does he accept that if those seeking higher paid employment could receive assistance to travel to interviews for those jobs, the job clubs would be even more successful than he has said they are?
    Mr. Lee: We certainly have some schemes to enable people to travel to interview if they live further than a certain distance from the potential vacancy. Our plan is to increase the number of job clubs from the 1,159 that we now have.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that job clubs do not create real new jobs, that their achievements are illusory and that they do not get people back into real jobs?
    Mr. Lee: They provide a real job for the job club leaders, but, of course the hon. Gentleman is not right. The whole point about job clubs is that they try to bring people who are unemployed into the jobs and vacancies that are available. The figures that I have given to the House are extremely good and show the success of the programme.

    Accidents at Work
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is considering any additional measures to try to reduce accidents at the place of work; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholls: These are matters for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. My right hon. Friend has made available to it an additional f6·7 million for next year, which it will apply as it thinks best to further improvements in work-related safety and health.
    Mr. Madel: When will new regulations come into force on the use of chemical compounds and the monitoring of dust and fumes in factories? Will regulations come in which will reduce permitted noise levels in factories, bringing them down from 90 to 85 decibels?
    Mr. Nicholls: A consultative document on the COSHH regulations is now with the Health and Safety Executive. It is considering its position on the matter and will shortly report to Ministers. The Health and Safety Executive published a consultative document on noise regulations on 15 December 1987. Representations can be made until 30 June. As my hon. Friend said, the effect of that will be to implement the European directive.
    Mr. Heffer: Does the Minister agree that the construction industry has one of the worst records of accidents and deaths at work? Does he further agree that that is due to the growth in self-employment of lump labour in the construction industry? Is it not time that the Government took some action about that and began to increase the number of factory inspectors, instead of reducing their numbers as they have done over the past few years?
    Mr. Nicholls: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the virtues of self-employment or otherwise. Fatalities among employees at work are at an all-time record low. Factory inspectors' numbers will be increased by 60 in the current year. The number of inspectors as against the number of those who are to be inspected has remained roughly constant under this Government, as it did under the previous one.

    Chemical Industry
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment trends in the chemical industry.
    Mr. Lee: Over the 12 months to September 1987 the number of employees in the chemical industry was unchanged at 339,000.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the prospects arising for exports in the chemical industry during 1987, together with the on-going investment in it — particularly in my constituency—hold out a strong prospect for a further fall in unemployment through the creation of jobs in that industry this year?
    Mr. Lee: I agree with the general comments of my hon. Friend about the chemical industry. It has achieved significant increases in output and is our fourth largest manufacturing industry. But I make a general point to my hon. Friend and to the House, that we increasingly have to differentiate between the prosperity of manufacturing industry and the numbers actually employed in manufacturing.

    AIDS
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation to protect those people who are HIV positive from discrimination at work.
    Mr. Nicholls: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of recent cases which make it clear that employees can be dismissed for being HIV positive? Will the Government consider this again?
    Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the two cases to which I believe he is referring
    848
    were not directly concerned with that matter. Indeed, an industrial tribunal will take a decision on its review of the facts and it is not directly a matter for Government.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Chancellor Kohl. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to look at a report in The Liverpool Daily Post, which confirms that district nurses in my constituency are using their free time to organise fund-raising activities to purchase medical equipment for the use of patients in their homes? Does that not demonstrate to the Government that, far from moonlighting, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt), nurses are concerned about cuts in the Health Service?
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance to the House that the nurses' pay award to be announced by the review body will be funded in full by the Government, with no strings attached?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the nurses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are doing extremely well and are carrying out their duties to their patients. With regard to revenue provision for the Health Service, in the hon. Member's constituency in 1978–79—[HON MEMBERS: "Here we go."] Yes, here we go with the facts. The hon. Gentleman was complaining about revenue provision. In 1978–79 it was £19 million; in 1988–89 it will be £,58·1 million; an increase in real terms of 45 per cent.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend commend those nurses who tomorrow will stay at their posts and do their duty? Does she agree that the suggestion that a strike will not gravely damage patient care is dangerous nonsense?
    The Prime Minister: A strike would gravely damage the patients and increase the waiting lists, which we have been strenuously trying to get down and for which, in this financial year, there has been some £25 million allocated specially to get them down. Another £30 million has been allocated for next year especially to get waiting lists down. A strike would increase waiting lists. It would also increase the burden on the nurses who would not dream of striking because they would never desert their patients.
    Mr. Kinnock: When Mr. Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing left the meeting with the Secretary of State yesterday he clearly had a strong impression that this year's pay award to the nurses would be fully funded by the Government. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether that impression was accurate—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a statement — [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no."] — issued since by the Royal College of Nursing. The position is as follows. The

    849
    implementation of the review body's award comes under an undertaking given by Lord Carr, when he was in this House, when the Top Salaries Review Body was set up, together with the review bodies for the armed forces and for doctors and dentists. Lord Carr announced to the House that the Government would not modify their recommendations
    "unless there are clear and compelling reasons for … doing so".—[Official Report, 2 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 672.]
    That has remained the practice. That is quite different from the funding of the implementation. The press statement by the Royal College of Nursing consists of four paragraphs, and I am quite happy to read out the whole lot.
    Mr. Faulds: Yes or no.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member should listen to what the press notice said. I had better read out the whole press statement by the Royal College of Nursing:
    "During the meeting between the Royal College of Nursing and the Secretary of State, he stated clearly that the nurses' pay award would be fully implemented 'unless there were clear and compelling reasons for the Government not to do so'.
    This is the language which has been used in the past when the awards have been interfered with or underfunded.
    The Royal College of Nursing fully understands that the Secretary of State cannot give a firm assurance on implementation and funding. This view is clearly reflected in a number of newspaper reports.
    The Royal College of Nursing does not believe that there can be any clear and compelling reasons for not implementing or fully funding the award in 1988."
    That is the full statement by the Royal College of Nursing, and that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Kinnock: Given the number of nurses leaving the Health Service, the widespread dissatisfaction and the wide scale of public support for proper pay for nurses and full funding, will the Prime Minister tell us what in her opinion would be the clear and compelling reasons for not paying the nurses properly?
    The Prime Minister: I stand by the comments, remarks and traditional practices that we have already adhered to. The pledge given by Lord Carr and the practice to which the Government have adhered, which has led to increases in pay for nurses of the order of 30 per cent. in real terms, is in contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's record. In the five pay years between 1974–75 and 1978–79 Labour cut nurses' pay in real terms in four of those years.
    Mr. Kinnock: Just to be absolutely clear, is the Prime Minister saying to the nurses today that she will not offer an undertaking to make full funding of the nurses' pay award this year, just as she has never made full funding of nurses' pay awards?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked this question in different terms three times. The answer is the same: that we have never undertaken to fund in full a pay award before we know what it is and what the structure is. Nevertheless, our total record on nurses' pay —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—is absolutely excellent, as I might remind him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: A ward sister on the maximum of the basic scale under the Labour Government was paid £4,900 and is now paid £12,000. That is the result of the Government's stewardship.
    Mr. Dykes: Now that my right hon. Friend has fully, comprehensively and satisfactorily answered those points, does she agree that we can use Prime Minister's Question Time for other important subjects? Bearing in mind the United States' position, announced last night, on the Security Council resolution, does she agree that this is a disappointing decision by the United States in view of the importance of that resolution and the gradual approach of the international peace conference in the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that we support the resolution. My hon. Friend is aware that we have quite clearly come out in favour of an international conference as a framework conference within which bilateral negotiations should take place between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel. I hope one day that other people will come round to that viewpoint and it will make possible further negotiations, which are urgent.
    Mr. McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKay: Will the right hon. Lady take into consideration the fact that the nurses down from Yorkshire today will listen very carefully to her failure to give clear and compelling reasons for not funding their increase and increasing underfunding? Is it not, in fact, in line with the fiddling of the payment of £8 for welfare benefits, where people are paid a single payment and not on each welfare benefit? That must be taken into account too.
    The Prime Minister: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that any clear and compelling reasons would not consist of the prices and incomes policy which hon. Members at present in opposition used to depress nurses' and doctors' pay year after year and, because of their economic stewardship, used to cut the National Health Service.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the Prime Minister agree that the position of the Health Service would be greatly improved if the Leader of the Opposition would categorically condemn strike action in the Health Service before we see the recommendations of the pay review body? Would she agree, further—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question of the Prime Minister for which she has responsibility.
    Mr. Redwood: Would the Prime Minister in the course of her busy day think of a way of persuading the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be asked questions on matters which are her responsibility, and for that, I am afraid, she has no responsibility.

    Westland
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 1987, Official Report, column 1100, what representations she has received seeking an amendment of the Public Record Acts so as to facilitate the early release of non-classified material relating to the Westland affair.
    The Prime Minister: None, so far as I am aware.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who brings the greater dishonour on Parliament? A Back-Bench Member who resorts to unparliamentary language, or a Head of Government who misuses a Law Officer's letter and then displays a shameless lack of candour about what she has done?
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. The many, many statements and speeches that I made on the subject were checked meticulously with the records.
    Mr. David Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the ferry workers of Dover should not be—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Engagements
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to Trevor Clay, RCN members are being manipulated and intimidated by extreme Left-wingers, that strike vote meetings are being held which have no constitutional basis inside a union, and that at University College hospital RCN members were challenged by pickets at the door to state their points of view? Does not this despicable behaviour on the part of the hard Left show that they have no interest in the welfare either of the nurses or of the patients, but are cynically using both to further their own political ends?
    The Prime Minister: I find it astonishing that some of the nurses' unions should attempt to use a strike weapon at a time when there is a pay review body—which was
    852
    given to the nurses because they did not go on strike—sitting to consider how much they should be paid. I find it even more astonishing that right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition do not utterly condemn the intimidatory tactics that Mr. Trevor Clay reported upon.
    Mr. Beith: What was yesterday's half per cent. rise in interest rates meant to signal, and to whom? Was it a warning that the Budget is going to be highly inflationary rather than one that will tackle the problems that have occupied the House this afternoon?
    The Prime Minister: I think that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has got his economics upside down. The half per cent. increase in interest rates was decided on because we are determined to keep inflation down and not let it go up, as did the Government whom he supported.
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend not consider it hypocritical of those trade union leaders in the National Health Service who have criticised waiting lists in the Health Service in the past to encourage their members to go on strike now, thereby considerably lengthen waiting lists, to the detriment of patients and everybody else?
    The Prime Minister: All those who are interested in giving a better service to patients and shortening waiting lists must condemn the strike activities that we are witnessing now. Not only will they increase waiting lists, but they will put an increasing burden on people in organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, who will not leave their posts. We should all be very grateful to the nurses who put the patients first.

Racal-Tacticom (PLO Contract)
3.32 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould(by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the granting of an export licence for Racal-Tacticom for the sale of military radio equipment to the PLO.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): It is not the practice to comment in detail on individual cases, but I have no evidence from the Department's records to suggest that such equipment was licensed for export to the PLO. In view of the allegiations, however, the matter is under investigation by the various Departments concerned.
Mr. Gould: Will the Under-Secretary assure the House that he will return to the House to give an account of the outcome of those investigations? Will he further assure the House that there have been no similar instances in other cases, and that they will not occur again? The Minister must be aware of the great concern that equipment of this sort might reach armed forces in South Africa, Argentina, parties to the Gulf war, and especially the Contras in Nicaragua. Will he guarantee that none of those has benefited in the past, or will benefit from similar mistakes by his Department?
Mr. Maude: I do not accept for a moment that a mistake has been made by the DTI, but investigations are being carried out to find out exactly what, if anything, untoward has happened. It is not clear by any means that something untoward has occurred.
We have a very good system in this country for ensuring that any exports of sensitive material are cleared in relation to their ultimate destination. Great care is taken by all Departments concerned before granting export licences for sensitive equipment. I believe that our system is as good as any.
More than 100,000 applications for export licences are made every year. Clearly it has not been possible to check through every one of those to see what has been going on.
Mr. Dennis Walters: Is not the position with regard to the PLO as stated by my noble Friend Lord Carrington when he was Foreign Secretary when he said that Her Majesty's Government did not regard the PLO as a terrorist organisation? In the circumstances, what is all the fuss about? It is not as if we were supplying truncheons to Mr. Rabin to break the bones of Palestinian civilians.
Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but clearly we would not do anything to enhance the capability of any element within the PLO to carry out acts of violence. I stress again that any application to export sensitive military equipment is cleared by all of the relevant Departments of Government, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister accept the accuracy of the statement that was put out by 10 Downing street on Sunday, that certain elements in the PLO have an appalling terrorist record? Bearing that in mind, and that there is an embargo on the sale of military equipment to Israel, which some of us deplore,
854
can he give an assurance that no arms or other military or sensitive equipment will go to the PLO with the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Maude: I can certainly give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that we have no evidence from our records to suggest that any items of that sort have gone to the PLO. However, we need to continue our investigations because allegations have been made in pubic newspapers and we want to know exactly what lies behind them. If anyone has any papers which controvert what I have said to the House, I should be grateful if he would produce them.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that Racal, which has its headquarters in my constituency and has a distinguished record of exporting all over the world, has a clear policy of not selling to any overseas country or overseas political organisation without the full consent of Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that that is right.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister state what steps his Department takes to ensure that, as he said, the ultimate destination is properly and accurately recorded on applications and that the items subsequently go to that destination? Will he also state whether the equipment that we are discussing falls into the category of lethal or non-lethal equipment for those purposes?
Mr. Maude: The type of equipment that we are talking about has not been made absolutely clear. The sort of equipment that has been described in some of the newspaper reports is not the same as the broad description in the question put to me at the outset by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). For sensitive military equipment, information of various sorts has to be provided about its ultimate destination and proposed use. The handling of export licence applications varies according to the type of goods and their proposed destination. Sensitive items are considered by all the relevant Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. It is not possible to have an absolutely foolproof system which makes it clear beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the items go to their stated destination. However, we do everything humanly possible to ensure that that is the case.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the level of state terrorism being meted out daily by the Israeli authorities on innocent Palestinians, and given the public perception that in current affairs in that part of the world the Israelis are very much cast in the role of the baddies, is there anything wrong in allowing the Palestinians to have equipment which we would allow the Israelis to have?
Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot get involved in that. My Department is concerned solely with the granting of export licences and we clear those applications, through the Government, in the usual way in the appropriate Departments.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is the Government's attitude to Members of Parliament of all political persuasions, including Conservative Members and hon. Members who are now Ministers, who have made visits to the middle east that have been sponsored by the PLO—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of this question which I should not have thought had anything to do with it.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Can my hon. Friend say unequivocally that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to allow the sale of arms to the PLO?
Mr. Maude: I say what I said before—that we would do nothing that would enhance the capability of any element within the PLO to carry out acts of violence.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: If the proscription of such equipment being supplied to liberation movements such as the PLO, the ANC and SWAPO is to be morally valid, why should not the supply of such equipment to countries that practise state terrorism, such as Israel against the Palestinians, South Africa against her own people and the United States against Nicaraguans, be proscribed for those countries? In view of the appalling conduct of the Israeli Army, should not Israel's shameless apologists adopt a somewhat more contrite and lower profile on this issue?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of wide-ranging issues which are certainly beyond my responsibilities and those of my Department. If he pursues them in the usual way, no doubt he will receive a satisfactory answer.
Mr. Robert Adley: Can my hon. Friend explain the logic of those who oppose the supply of arms or anything else to the PLO, which is opposing the state terrorism of Israel in the middle east, while at the same time supporting the supply of arms to the Afghan rebels who are opposing the state terrorism of the Soviet Union in their country?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend airs his point of view. It is interesting and useful, but I cannot add to what I have said already.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I oppose the sale of arms by the British Government to any country. Is it not clear that there has been Israeli terrorism against Britain in the past, and that the real issue is whether we are in favour of the Palestinian people having their own homeland and their own state? Should not this Government, and every other progressive Government, be concentrating on that issue?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very wide of the question. This is a private notice question and not an extension of Question Time.

Sri Lankan Tamils (Deportation)
3.41 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Home Secretary to deport six Sri Lankan Tamils from Britain."
This is a serious and important matter. Yesterday the Home Secretary sent a letter to the solicitors acting on behalf of six Sri Lankan Tamils who sought political asylum in Britain to the effect that he now intends to deport them back to Sri Lanka because he considers the situation there to be safe. The situation in Sri Lanka is not safe. Many Tamils are still being killed because of the communal disturbances there. Many Tamils have lost family. Many of my constituents have lost family in Sri Lanka.
An additional consequence of the Home Secretary's decision is that a further 2,300 Tamil people with temporary exceptional leave to remain in Britain are threatened with removal under his decision. It is wrong that such a decision should be made known only by letter and not by a statement to Parliament. It is doubly wrong because the organisations with the best knowledge and ability in regard to Sri Lanka are opposed to that decision. Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are concerned about it.
The Home Secretary appears to be trying to run a regime that is the worst in Europe in regard to asylum applications. He is turning his back on the safety of those people and insisting that they be removed from Britain. The matter is urgent and important on humanitarian and legal grounds. It is incumbent on the House to discuss the plight of refugees and demand that the Home Secretary, instead of hiding behind his office and writing letters, comes clean and explains to the House why he has taken such an inhuman attitude towards these sad and desperate people.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of the Home Secretary to reject the asylum applications of six Sri Lankan Tamils."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House. However, I hope that he may find other legitimate ways of raising the matter in the House.

Points of Order
3.43 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
Hon. Members: A point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see without any help.
Mrs. Mahon: Today I was contacted by the parents of a two-month old constituent who was not able to have a vital heart operation at Killingbeck hospital.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a little unfair of the hon. Lady to raise this matter. She may have been informed about it today, but the event took place last Wednesday. The hon. Lady must find legitimate ways to bring the matter before the House, not by way of a point of order.
Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member of Parliament, I should be grateful if you could advise me on how it might be possible through parliamentary procedure to raise the important point that throughout the country there is support for an extra 2p on tax being put towards the National Health Service.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady would like to come and see me one evening with a friend, I should be delighted to tell her.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had not progressed very far in her point before you intervened, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be right for you, Mr. Speaker, at least to hear my hon. Friend's point of order before intervening? My hon. Friend may have been asking whether she could raise a debate in the House and how should she do that. You did not give her that chance.
Mr. Speaker: I do know about this. Has the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) whether she has received any advice about the matter?
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have relatively new hon. Members in the Chamber who have been here for only six months, who have never raised a point of order—or very few—and certainly have never made a Standing Order No. 20 application. These matters can be more than a little difficult for such Members. Sometimes they make their representations to you, Mr. Speaker, and others to try to raise a matter. Some of us know that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was concerned about the plight of a baby who had been in hospital and was subsequently refused admission—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. I know more about this matter than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I accept that hon. Members who have not been Members for very long need a little guidance and advice. I am always willing and prepared to give it, and in this case I did give it.
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mrs. Mahon: Disgraceful.
Mr. Heffer: It is disgraceful.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member of Parliament, and without having an evening engagement with you, will you advise me about how to raise the question of the Confederation of Health Service Employees' National Health charter that was launched today?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady does not need to seek advice from me on that matter.
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of our proceedings.
Mr. Heifer: It is your abuse.
Mr. Speaker: That is reprehensible of the hon. Gentleman, who knows nothing about the background to this matter—or perhaps he does.
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. So that there will be no mystery about this, I must tell the hon. Lady that I was unable to accept her application for a Standing Order No. 20 debate because in her letter to me she said that she was raising the matter of an operation that was cancelled last Wednesday. If the hon. Lady consults Standing Order No. 20 —which binds me and all other hon. Members—she will discover that the matter to be raised must be urgent, specific and important and must be raised at the first opportunity. The hon. Lady may have only just heard about it, but the truth is that nearly a week has passed. I can only go by what the hon. Lady states in her application.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. John Battle rose—
Mr. Speaker: Very well—
Mr. Corbyn: Him or me?
Mr. Speaker: Him.
Mr. Battle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, may I state that, as I have listened to you this afternoon, I have become increasingly confused about what Standing Order No. 20 refers to. If it is not urgent and specific to raise the case of a child needing an operation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to the whole House that when I was chosen to be your Speaker I was expected to ensure that our Standing Orders were kept. I am doing that today. I do not think that the hon. Members who are rising now would wish the Speaker to bend the Standing Orders. I cannot do that.
I am afraid that I have said more than I wanted to say, but, as the matter has been raised in this way, let me repeat that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has been to see me. The position has been fully explained to her, and she has been advised what she can do about it. I have sought to help her, but I cannot allow her to raise the matter by way of a point of order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any more points of order on this matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any more points of order on this.

Personal Income (Ending of Higher Rate Taxation)
3.50 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the taxation of personal income at higher than standard rate.
On a number of occasions the House has allowed me to introduce a Bill under our old-established First Reading procedure, which afterwards has been put into effect by the Government. I hope that this may be another such occasion.
At this time of year the attention of hon. Members is particularly directed to matters of taxation. It is the particular responsibility of the House of Commons to resist taxation which is arbitrary, unfair or adverse to the health of the economy.
I think that the House knows that I am concerned that we have so many millions of people at the lower end of the income scale who are inhibited from working and saving, for the good of themselves and the economy as a whole, by our obsolete and unpopular system of income support. I believe in Sir Winston Churchill's policy that we should ensure that every citizen has an adequate basic income, but that above that level every citizen—male and female—should be encouraged to rise as high as they can.
I believe that it is quite wrong to use the system of taxation and benefit in such a way as to inhibit effort and thrift at any level of society. I have accordingly written to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to suggest that in his Budget he should end the long-term capital gains tax; that he should reform the transfer-and-inheritance tax so that no one incurs a capital levy at a higher rate than the standard rate of income tax; and, in particular, that he should take this opportunity to end the higher rate taxes on income altogether.
It is wrong in principle to use the tax system to punish success. The British economy is not so successful that we can afford to restrain our most active entrepreneurs, or to drive them offshore. The countries of the Pacific area are streaking ahead of us. We cannot allow that situation to continue; but we should ask ourselves why. It is not because the British people have become inert or incompetent, but we do have systems which are inhibiting the growth of the economy, and they need urgent attention.
Higher rate tax was introduced in 1909. The 80 years that have followed have been years of relative economic decline for this country. The yield of personal tax, if the higher rates were abolished, would soon increase to overcome the possible loss of 1 or 2 per cent. of total revenue which might occur in the first year. Everyone in Britain would stand to gain from the reform, from the highest to the lowest, if the economy were set free to grow faster.
I would not be seeking leave to bring in this Bill if there were anyone in Britain who would suffer from it —except, of course, the armies of professional people who advise on tax avoidance. They could well be turning their agile minds to something more constructive. The higher rate tax is a survival of class-war attitudes which have no place in modern Britain; the reform that I am suggesting is one from which everyone would gain and no one would lose.
860
We know what is needed to make a free enterprise capitalist economy really fruitful. All that we need is the will power to do it. I have written accordingly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as follows:
"The vigour of the people who are capable of earning the highest incomes and the discernment of the most far-seeing investors are the most precious assets of the economy. It is senseless to weaken their motivation and diminish their effectiveness by incorporating a discriminatory punitive mechanism in the tax system. Even if the sole object were to raise revenue, it would in a short time prove to be better attained by removing the limitations on the most active entrepreneurs, rather than by forcing them to adopt time-consuming tax avoidance routines or to take their energies and fortunes abroad. Britain should be a tax haven for its own citizens and a magnet for the best brains of other countries."
I believe that the extreme simplification of the taxation and benefit system, for ease of comprehension and administration in the private as well as in the public sector, should be a major Treasury objective in its own right. Computers now make that possible, but I would prefer that everyone should be able to calculate their tax bill in their heads.
At present the national insurance contribution raises the marginal rate of tax for the majority of earners to 36 per cent. I would like therefore to suggest that the new standard rate of tax should include the national insurance contribution and should be set at not more than 35 per cent. I believe that that would be in line with other countries that are also contemplating considerable reductions in the higher rates of taxation for their citizens. There should be suitable exemptions to compensate those people whose investment income is not large enough to make them liable for higher rates of tax.
I hope that the House will see the logic of what I am suggesting and that my Bill will not be opposed. If there is a Division, I trust that there are enough true Thatcherites here to enable me to carry my Bill.
3.57 pm
Mr. John Battle: I do not really want to make a speech on this matter, but I wish to divide the House.
I find it strange that the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is seeking to introduce this Bill yin the light of his previous comments on child benefit when there was some consensus.
I believe that the proposed Bill would clearly signal the time when the tax system increasingly favoured the rich. For those who have a good job the effect of the Bill wound be that they would be rewarded even more, but those with low-paid, part-time jobs would have to work even harder for even less. In other words, the tax system is clearly stacked in favour of the rich. The wealthier will get wealthier—as they do now—and the Bill will perpetuate that situation. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I seek to divide the House on this issue.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)
The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 180.

Division No. 160]

[4 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arbuthnot, James

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Ashby, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Aspinwall, Jack

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Boswell, Tim

861

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Burns, Simon

Moss, Malcolm

Carrington, Matthew

Paice, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Powell, William (Corby)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Rathbone, Tim

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Redwood, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Riddick, Graham

Dicks, Terry

Rost, Peter

Dover, Den

Shaw, David (Dover)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fookes, Miss Janet

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Gill, Christopher

Speed, Keith

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stanbrook, Ivor

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Janman, Timothy

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Warren, Kenneth

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Wheeler, John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Kilfedder, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Wilkinson, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Woodcock, Mike

Mans, Keith

Marlow, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

and Mr. Edward Leigh.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Corbett, Robin

Allen, Graham

Corbyn, Jeremy

Alton, David

Cox, Tom

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Crowther, Stan

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cryer, Bob

Ashdown, Paddy

Cummings, J.

Ashton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dalyell, Tam

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Battle, John

Day, Stephen

Beith, A. J.

Dewar, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dixon, Don

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Doran, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Blunkett, David

Dunnachie, James

Boyes, Roland

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Bradley, Keith

Eadie, Alexander

Brazier, Julian

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fatchett, Derek

Buckley, George

Fearn, Ronald

Caborn, Richard

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Callaghan, Jim

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flannery, Martin

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Forth, Eric

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

French, Douglas

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Galbraith, Samuel

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Galloway, George

Clay, Bob

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Coleman, Donald

Godman, Dr Norman A.

862

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Mullin, Chris

Gould, Bryan

Murphy, Paul

Graham, Thomas

Nellist, Dave

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William

Grocott, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Parry, Robert

Harman, Ms Harriet

Patchett, Terry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pendry, Tom

Haynes, Frank

Pike, Peter

Heffer, Eric S.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Henderson, Douglas

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hood, James

Redmond, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Howells, Geraint

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Salmond, Alex

Illsley, Eric

Sedgemore, Brian

Ingram, Adam

Sheerman, Barry

Jack, Michael

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Janner, Greville

Short, Clare

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Skinner, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lambie, David

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Lamond, James

Soley, Clive

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Lewis, Terry

Steel, Rt Hon David

Litherland, Robert

Steinberg, Gerald

Livsey, Richard

Stott, Roger

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Strang, Gavin

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Straw, Jack

McAllion, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McAvoy, Tom

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McFall, John

Tredinnick, David

McGrady, E. K.

Turner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Vaz, Keith

McKelvey, William

Wall, Pat

McTaggart, Bob

Wallace, James

Madden, Max

Walley, Ms Joan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Marek, Dr John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Martlew, Eric

Wilson, Brian

Meacher, Michael

Winnick, David

Meale, Alan

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Michael, Alun

Worthington, Anthony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wray, James

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Morley, Elliott

Mr. Harry Ewing.

Question accordingly negatived.

Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
  New Clause 1

    INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS PRIOR TO TRIALS
    '(1) Prior to the commencement of all water metering trials, representatives of water undertakers shall contact all households and explain to them the nature of the trials and the rights the household has under existing consumer law and any other matter determined by this Act.
    (2) The contact with the householder can be by telephone or visit.
    (3) Trials shall not commence until all households in the trial scheme have been contacted.
    (4) Should any household not have been contacted prior to the commencement of the trial, then that household shall have the right not to take part by notifying the water undertaker of their intention. This right shall be indicated to the households in writing one week before the trials commence and the householders shall be given one week to notify the water undertakers.'.
    Brought up, and read the First time—[Mr. Boyes.]
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 3—
    Provisions relating to redress for consumers etc.
    '(1) During the period of a metering trial scheme, a person subject to a charge from a water undertaker, under the latter's powers, conferred under this Act or under any other enactment shall be entitled to redress in the form of financial compensation if—

    (a) that person's water supply falls below the standard as set by the EEC;

    (b) the supply of water to that person is cut off for a period of a minimum of 12 hours resulting from circumstances which are in no way attributable to that person; and

    (c) the drainage of sewerage from the residence of that person is rendered inadequate so as to interfere with that person's enjoyment of his residence.';

    and amendment No. 4, in clause 4, page 5, line 34, at end insert
    'and consumer bodies representing their interests'.
    4.8 pm
    Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    We are now entering the final stages of a shoddy and undesirable Bill. It provides for trials to take place in the use of water meters so that water is charged for by consumption rather than by rateable value. The Bill has not provided for any consultation with the people who will take part in the trials; they will have no choice in the matter. Even if they do not consent to participate, the premises may he entered by force.
    For many years, it has been possible for households to opt freely for water meters. When requested, they are fitted by the water undertakers. However, the data available show that only 0·67 per cent of domestic users –126,000 out of 18,000,737 households—have taken the opportunity. That hardly proves that there is a demand for universal water metering. Furthermore, it shows that the Bill is unnecessary because the metering facility that it seeks to test is already available. In addition, a number of reports on the advantages and disadvantages of water metering have been prepared, both in this country and abroad. All this suggests that the further trials have nothing to do with the interests of the consumer.
    864
    Opposition Members have spoken to a number of people who have argued strongly against the introduction of meters, principally because it will result in increased water costs for many people on low incomes. Those particularly affected will be large families and those who work in dirty conditions and have abnormally large washing and laundry needs. People are also concerned about the group of people who will worry greatly about using water if it is metered. We all know of elderly people who sit in the dark or do not switch on their electric heaters because they fear large bills. Exactly the same people will worry about running the bath or flushing the lavatory.
    On 2 June 1986, Rosemary Collins reported in The Guardian on the national conference of water consumer consultative committees. She said that the delegates were almost unanimous in their dislike of compulsory metering. They thought that, in areas of high unemployment, metering would lead to a woman with six children bathing them all once a week and pulling the chain once every four days and that the implications for public health were frightening.
    That point of view was supported by an editorial in the Western Mail on 16 May 1986:
    "many large families, supported by only one income earner, are liable to be heavily hit badly if metering is made obligatory. This, along with the fear that pensioners would economise on the use of water to the detriment of health and hygiene, is one of the objections now advanced by the consumer council."
    It is clear that there is no interest in, or support for, the Bill among the consumer organisations.
    Normanton is one of the areas in which trials will take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is the only hon. Member who served on the Standing Committe in whose patch a trial is due to take place. Not one of the 10 Conservative Members in whose constituencies trials are to take place saw his way to serving on the Committee. That is curious, and it is equally curious, given that the trials are supposed to be conducted scientifically, that 10 of the 11 constituencies to be used are Conservative constituencies. I presume that the Government wished to reduce the number of complaints from Members of Parliament. That is the only conclusion that we can draw.
    Midweek Extra, the local newspaper that circulates in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, recently carried the headline:
    "Residents plan water 'lock-out'. Meter trials under threat."
    The article states:
    "Normanton residents are threatening to refuse Yorkshire Water Authority access to their homes to instal water meters.
    Around 750 homes in the Queen Elizabeth Drive and Warmfield areas of Normanton have been chosen to take part in water metering trials over an estimated three years.
    However local district councillor Paul Barrett claims people are talking among themselves about refusing workmen access to instal the necessary equipment."
    The interests of the consumer are not the interests of the Government. The Government are treating the consumer shoddily in peddling this Bill.
    4.15 pm
    In Committee, Opposition Members argued strenuously and at length on behalf of the consumer, who has been largely ignored by the Government. On all occasions, we showed that our amendments were designed to safeguard the interests of the consumer taking part in

    865
    water trials and, in the longer term, of all those who may be subject to the introduction of compulsory water metering.
    We know that the real purpose of the trials has nothing to do with the interests of consumers. They are designed to determine and establish the conditions that will prevent consumers from opting out. We spent 75 hours or more in Committee questioning the Minister about how he would measure the results and what result would lead the Government to make a firm decision to introduce compulsory metering or abandon the idea completely. At this last opportunity, I ask him that question again. Perhaps he will come up with a comprehensive reply. If the experiment cannot fail, it is not an experiment.
    The new clauses and the amendment are an extension of our argument for more consumer rights. That means rights before, during and after the trials take place. Incidentally, it also means rights for Members of Parliament. Before the Committee stage the Water Companies Association circulated an astonishing letter, and it is important that its contents should be on the record. It was dated 21 August 1987 and was marked "confidential":
    "It is understood that Ministers are nervous about the passage of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill through Parliament (especially through the Lords). As a result you are asked in particular not to give MPs, the press or the public the impression that:

    (a) it is a foregone conclusion that compulsory trials will take place;

    (b) the areas have already been selected and cannot be altered; and

    (c) whatever the outcome of the trials, universal metering will be introduced."

    I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of this House, will agree that it is drastically wrong, and undesirable, for people to write letters which say that hon. Members must be denied information.
    Opposition Members believe that every household taking part in the trials should be aware of its rights under existing consumer law before the trials begin. This should be achieved by the water undertakers contacting the consumer directly — preferably by visit or, if that is inconvenient for the consumer, by telephone. The right of the consumer to question the water undertaker, to have the meter explained in detail and to express an opinion should be fundamental to the trial process. That is vital because many people cannot understand, and are frightened by, the mumbo jumbo of official letters. Equally, the small print of the exclusion clauses must be carefully explained because they are worded in jargon understandable only to a small number of specialists.
    We believe that an exercise of properly informing consumers before the trials begin is an absolute necessity. New clause 1 prevents trials from taking place until every household has been fully informed and its members have had their rights explained to them. The very least that the Government can do is to promise to instruct water undertakers involved in the trials to ensure that every household taking part knows its rights. Until that has been done, the trials have no right to start and they should be delayed until that exercise has been completed. If a householder is not contacted, he should have the legal right to opt out of these squalid, unnecessary, undesirable and unwanted trials.
    Ms. Joan Walley: I rise in support of new clause 1. The main purpose of the new clause is to make it clear that water is basic to public health and that, for far too long, we have taken water supplies for granted. In view of the proposed poll tax, there is an urgent need to provide an alternative way of charging for water and metering appears to have become that alternative.
    The Bill proposes to introduce compulsory water metering in selected areas. We have considered the Bill over the past few weeks and it has become clear that consumer protection and consumer rights will not be safeguarded when compulsory meters are installed. The money which will be invested in water meters could be much better invested in ensuring safer and purer water supplies and in dealing with nitrate and nitrite problems. Although water meters will be compulsorily introduced only in experimental areas, when the proposals for privatisation, rather than nationalisation, of the water industry come before the House, consumer rights will become a much more important issue as water consumers will have to pay much higher charges on the basis of volume of water used.
    For all these reasons, it is more important than ever to have a proper consumers' charter. Under the provisions of new clause 1, consumers will be better safeguarded and will have a better chance to ensure that the amount they pay for their water is correct. It will also give them the right to check on the quality of the water coming through the taps into their homes.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) drew attention to the many families who will be seriously affected because they will be unable to afford baths and to use all the water facilities in their homes. Like many gas and electricity consumers, water consumers, without proper safeguards, will not get proper service. We should support the new clauses in the hope of safeguarding consumer interests.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful for the opportunity to endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley).
    In Committee, the Minister was at pains to show how open and informative he wanted to be in presenting his case for selling off the water industry. I hope that he will recall that and will accept that new clause 1 can add to the coherence of the Bill. I hope that he will recognise that it is unreasonable to make major changes to an essential household utility without fully informing the residents of the household. I hope that he will understand that it is natural for people to worry about changes that might be made to their domestic set-up. It is a worrying prospect for people to have a meter installed in their homes. Like me, I am sure that the Minister and Conservative Members have constituents who will fret for weeks at the prospect of having their water cut off while a meter is installed, perhaps in a very cold part of the winter.
    There was a recent case of this in my constituency concerning the residents of Westwood road in the Brunton park estate. Those residents got in touch with me to express their concern about matters involving the water board. According to street gossip, the street and gardens would be dug up and water would be cut off in the middle of winter. Some residents claimed that they did not know

    867
    why the the water board wanted to do that. They were not sure whether special arrangements had been made to provide water storage or supplies on very cold days. I contacted the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company which told me that, because of corrosion in pipes, 100m. sections had to be removed before a new lining could be installed, and that this process could take up to 30 hours.
    The water company also confirmed that residents would be warned in advance. It confirmed that special arrangements could be made to advise people how to store water and that board personnel would be available to assist elderly residents who could not carry water to the place where it was needed or prepare for water storage before the water was cut off. I do not know whether the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company publicised properly what it intended to do in this case. I suspect that it did its best to advise people, but it has emerged from my investigation that the residents did not understand what was about to happen. No matter how hard the water board had tried to inform people, the message had not got across.
    It would be most alarming if a similar situation were to arise when water meter trials take place. The example I have cited and other examples which my hon. Friends will be able to cite show the need for individual contact with consumers. I relate my remarks specifically to new clause 1(2) where we refer to telephone contact or individual contact. I should prefer individual contact. I am not sure whether it is proper to pick up the phone and get in touch with people throughout an area. Some people may be alarmed by that approach. It would be better to have individual contact via a water board officer.
    Consumers will want to know how long they will be without water when the meters are installed. They will want to know where the meters will be fitted. We heard in Committee that there are several options and that meters can be fixed at the gate or at least two other places in domestic premises. Many consumers will say, "The water board may know where it wants to install the meter, but will I have a choice?" Consumers will also want to know what happens if their decorations are damaged when the meter is installed. Who would be responsible for putting right the damage? Would the water board be responsible or would people be expected to do it themselves?
    We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington about some consumers in Normanton being so much in the dark that they might refuse access to board officials. Whatever our views on the desirability of installing water meters, no hon. Member would want that to happen. Consumers will inevitably want to ask whether there will be a mess. I must be careful not to make a sexist point, but we all have mothers and grandmothers who will want a cast-iron guarantee from the water board, as they would from the gas board, the electricity board or painters and decorators, that there will be no mess before giving free access to their homes. Those who face the prospect of the installation of a water meter have the right to be told by the water board whether there will be a mess in their homes.
    4.30 pm
    Those Conservative Members whose constituencies are involved have not taken the time to be with us this afternoon. I wish that they had because if the Government do not accept the new clause they will be inundated by demands from constituents who want the answers to such questions. I see the Minister checking the Opposition
    868
    Benches, but we are all here. Hon. Members will all have been shown the mess left by council officials and others. I have visited attics, cellars, under the stairs and rooftops to see the mess that has been left. Conservative Members will be inundated with such requests and the Government would be wise to accept the new clause.
    Consumers will also want to know when the job will be started, how long it will take and who will pay for it. They will want to know whether their water bill will be affected after the meter is installed, who will take the readings, when they will be taken, and so on. Consumers will also want to know what will happen if the trial is a flop. They will rightly want to know the answer to such questions and to many others.
    If the Government can spend £23 million advertising the sale of British Petroleum, surely they can provide the finance necessary to enable the water board to approach directly every consumer faced with the prospect of the compulsory installation of a water meter.
    People have a right to know. Two weeks ago the Government whipped Conservative Members to curtail the public's right to know what was happening in government under the Protection of Official Information Bill prepared by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is (Mr. Shepherd). I appeal to the Minister to refrain from whipping Conservative Members this afternoon to prevent water consumers having the right to know.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is an example of the unreconstructed, blinkered, backward-looking attitude of the Labour party that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) should refer to only mothers and grandmothers being so worried about the mess. We all know where the Labour party stands on the roles of men and women in the household. If he were worried about the mess, he should be just as worried about the attitude of fathers and grandfathers. I take that as a basis upon which to respond to the new clause.
    To hear the comments from Labour Members, anyone would think that we had not had meters for electricity and gas for many years. It is ludicrous to suggest that meters are an alien and new way of measuring supplies of vital necessities. Furthermore, most European countries meter their water.
    I speak as a director of a water company in whose area one of the trials is to take place and I would respond with some amusement to the reaction of Labour Members to the cynical attitude of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to those who are volunteering for the trials. I had no idea that hon. Members were thought to have been press-ganged where there might be some difficulty with the public. With the Local Government Finance Bill and a fairer system for paying for local government, it is right to find a fairer, more appropriate and modern way to pay for water.
    It is also important to move on with the trials with some speed. Before long-term solutions are found for the paying for water locally, we need to learn the lessons of the trials. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take no notice of the new clause, which will lead to greater delays, bureaucracy and difficulty. The water company of which I have the privilege to be a director takes great trouble over its customer relations, as I am sure do all the others. If there are any difficulties with people's uncertainty about

    869
    what is involved in the metering trials, I am sure that they will have no difficulty in explaining it. I urge my hon. Friend to reject the new clause hastily.
    Ms. Joyce Quin: I want to address my remarks specifically to new clause 3. However, before doing so I want to support my hon. Friends in the arguments that they have been putting forward in seeking to amend the Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) pointed out, is a shoddy, ill-thought-out piece of legislation—perhaps the most madcap privatisation of all. Not surprisingly, a recent opinion poll has shown that the public oppose more Government sell-offs. I am sure that the prospect of the privatisation of the water industry was uppermost in their minds when they were asked to participate in that particular poll.
    I agree with my hon. Friends that new clauses 1 and 3 show that throughout our discussions the interests of the consumers have been paramount for us. Consumers have not been taken much into account in the Bill. I do not know whether the water company that was referred to by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) consulted the consumers in its trial area, or how many questions it asked them about whether they wanted to be involved in such a trial, but the information that we have, in particular from the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), is that the public strongly oppose being dragooned into a trial in which they do not wish to participate. The general public are worried not only about the principle of water metering but about many of the practical issues relating to the installation of meters, and so on, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson).
    New clause 3 specifically lists various conditions under which a customer in the metering trial areas can have redress and financial compensation. That is important. New clause 3(1)(a) refers to the fact that such compensation shall be given if a
    "person's water supply falls below the standard as set by the EEC".
    The Government have freely agreed to implement that standard but have been slow to do so in practice. There is much public concern about that and the European Commission is considering many cases concerning various parts of Britain where our water quality does not meet EEC standards. We do not want to see people pay more for inferior water, and that point needs to be made clearly.
    The cost of complying with the EEC directive has not been clarified during the long hours we have spent on the issue in Committee. It has been claimed that it will cost about £6 billion to ensure that our water quality comes up to the required standard. That figure has been disputed by the Government, but so far we have no clear figure that we can tell people is the right one. Nor do we have a figure for the different water authorities, some of which will be involved in the metering trial schemes.
    New clause 3(1)(b) refers to the fact that we believe that consumers in the trial areas will think that they have already been put to considerable inconvenience, and we want to ensure that we do not inconvenience them even more—hence the specific points of redress in the new
    870
    clause, especially in the eventuality of the water supply being cut off during the trial period. New clause 3(1)(c) also gives consumers the possibility of redress if problems are experienced with drainage and sewerage in the trial period.
    Amendment No. 4 is part and parcel of our concern for the consumer. In it, we refer to the consumer bodies that may represent the consumer. That is important, because it is likely that consumers in the trial areas will be worried about the trial but may not have the time to write letters and make telephone calls and all the other sorts of representations that they might otherwise want to make. That is why groups formed to represent their interests need to be taken into account. So far, we have had no clear evidence from the Minister that he has engaged in in-depth consultations with such consumer bodies, or that he has even made an effort to contact them. We recommend that he does; otherwise, there is no doubt that public discontent in the trial areas may become great, as has already happened in Normanton.
    The amendments are important. They would bring in an element of safeguarding the interests of the consumer. They form part of the background of our discontent with the Bill. We think that the priority now should be to bring our water up to EEC standards and to ensure that the infrastructure is of a good quality throughout the country, so that consumers receive the clean and safe water supplies that they need. Then, and only then, if the Government still insist on embarking on privatisation, should they do so. Privatisation is not the priority; even the Government should not consider it as such now.
    Mr. Tom Pendry: I had intended to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on putting her head above the parapet and making a contribution. She declared her interest; no doubt she has a vested interest in the legislation. She did her two minutes and vanished from the Chamber, so perhaps I should not dwell on my congratulations to her.
    I want to speak mostly to new clause 3 and amendment No. 4. Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill my hon. Friends and I have been concerned with consumers' interests. We have battled for them, but we have not had too much to show for our pains, for the Minister has not responded positively. We are anxious to ensure that those who must take part in compulsory trials are not significantly inconvenienced. They should be protected, not least because, as has already been said, the trial areas have been selected in constituencies represented by Conservative Members, with the exception of Normanton. It was explained, and not refuted, in Committee that that was a mistake by the Government. They thought that they were getting another Member of Parliament, but it turned out to be my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who is clearly an expert on these matters. The Government must have regretted that mistake.
    4.45 pm
    We have no faith that hon. Members representing these constituencies, with the exception of my hon. Friend, will actively represent their consumers' interests. So we think we should take time on Report to speak up once more for those consumers. It is axiomatic to us that any householder who finds that the quality of water supplied has deteriorated to below the EEC standards mentioned

    871
    by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) should receive compensation, and we say so in new clause 3.
    The quality of water is, more than ever before, a real issue today. We want to ensure that the Government do not use the trials as an excuse to squeeze money out of consumers while failing to supply them with a quality product. The purpose of the standards set by the EEC is to provide a decent quality of water nationwide. Yet it was only in 1987 that the Government accepted the 1985 directive on water standards. That is disgraceful testimony to the Government's regard for water quality.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and for Gateshead, East spent a great deal of time in Committee explaining the problems of nitrates in our water. The Government did not respond positively to ensure that the levels would be eliminated in the short term.
    We are also concerned about the problem of the cowboy contractors. It is a pity that the plumber's mate, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), is not here today. It was bad enough that Conservative Members in Committee said nothing, but now they seem to have deserted the Minister completley on Report, and are not to be seen—except, I suppose, in the Division Lobbies tonight. We know that the hon. Member for Hornchurch represents plumbers in the House and he should be here to take part in the debate, because he intervened shortly in Committee to say that he was concerned that the Minister was not doing enough. We are worried that the cowboy contractors will get into the act as a result of the Bill.
    The water industry does not have the sort of safeguards that the gas industry has, and I asked the Minister a question about that in Committee, to which he promised to respond. Perhaps he will do so tonight. The gas suppliers have CORGI — the Confederation for the Registration of Gas Installers —to maintain standards. The water industry should have such a safeguard, because many authorities, including mine in the north-west, have sent out leaflets to alert consumers to the dangers of certain private contractors who are not qualified. Now, when the water meters are installed, things will be far worse, and people will use anyone who can thread a pipe—or conduit or whatever—or work with lead piping. Anyone who can do so will be allowed, if the Bill is passed, to install meters. The Minister has a responsibility to guarantee to us and people in the water meter areas that their meters will be installed by registered plumbers of an acceptable calibre.
    Amendment No. 4 has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East. The Government cannot ride roughshod over reputable consumer bodies. The National Consumer Council has said clearly through the redoubtable champion of consumer rights, Miss Day, to whom I referred many times in Committee:
    "The first thing we noted about the study was that it was a report whose members were drawn entirely from the industry itself. There was no consumer representation or participation, and it shows."
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West is back in her place. That was the point that she missed. There has been no consumer representation. Consumers have not been asked for their views and they have not
    872
    participated in the thinking. We understand that the hon. Lady has a vested interest; least she was brave enough to say so.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It would be improper for me not to say so. As to service to the consumer, I want to point out that trials are a good idea before moving forward generally. I have established in regard to the water company with which I am associated that letters have already gone out to every consumer in the area. Public meetings have been offered. Even a mini survey has been embarked on to test how people are reacting to the prospect of metering trials. Visits have taken place in the evenings and at other times, if necessary. I have every reason to believe that the other companies and authorities have behaved in the same way. The hon. Gentleman should think again before suggesting that there is not the highest standard of service to customers and concern for their interest.
    Mr. Pendry: It is clear that the hon. Lady's company has done something to bridge the gap. It is a pity that she and other Conservative Members did not press the Government to do a similar exercise throughout the trial areas. The Government and the Minister stand condemned. The hon. Lady should have spoken up loudly in the past and should, with other hon. Members, have pressurised the Government. Representatives of consumers need to be involved in the decisions or at least in the discussions. We urge the Government, even at this late stage, to state clearly that they will be involved from now on.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The amendments concentrate precisely on the area that has been most neglected by the Government—the rights of consumers, consultations with consumers and ensuring that the best interests of consumers are defended. That was evident throughout the proceedings in Committee from what the Minister said, or, rather, from what he did not say. We did not get long speeches about how much the consumer would benefit from metering. We did not get long explanations about the benefits to consumers of the privatisation that the metering scheme presages. What we got was a series of detailed and not very stimulating speeches from the Minister about the specifics of metering trials, whether a certain type of meter was the most appropriate, and so on. The interests of the consumer did not feature, except in reply to detailed questions as to whether the best specifics were being adopted.
    In new clause 1 we have the first essential —consultation with consumers to make sure that they are fully involved and aware of what is going on. I can cite an example of a similar problem that happened to one of my constituents in dealing with the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue said that it had written to him, giving him the necessary details to make a return. He said that he had never received the letter. All the evidence is that he did not receive the letter because, as a result of not having responded to it, he lost many thousands of pounds. He now finds it impossible to get the money back because the Inland Revenue says that he never replied to a letter which he says he did not receive.
    That is precisely the kind of concern that I have about the proposals in the Bill. There may be better consultation in some trial areas, but that provision should be written into the Bill. New clause 1 is one way of doing it. It is not

    873
    necessarily the best or the most adequate way, but the proposal that is before the House would ensure that there is consultation.
    I should have thought that new clause 3 was self-evidently desirable and the right way to approach things. If someone does not get a service for which he is expected to pay, he should not have to pay for it. That is what one would expect to happen in the private sector. As the metering trials are the forerunners of the privatisation of water, it makes sense that the consumer should be protected financially. It is a basic principle, after consultation, to have a system of redress, not through the courts, or with extreme difficulty, but as an automatic right for the consumer. Had the Minister presented in Committee detailed and convincing arguments on how consumers would benefit from the proposals, it might be argued that, as they were benefiting so much from metering, they did not need such protection, although I do not think that would wash well with any other private industry. As he did not even attempt to do that, I hope that he, and the House, will see the logic of accepting the new clause.
    Amendment No. 4 seeks to involve consumer groups to represent the interests of consumers. I do not understand why the Government oppose the amendment. It is logical and clear. I am sure that the Minister hopes that that would happen, so it should be written into the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will accept it.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Perhaps I will.
    Mr. Taylor: "Perhaps I will," says the Minister. This could be an almost unique occasion in the passage of the Bill. It may just be that the Minister is about to accept something. I hope so, because I think that there is no reason to reject it. It would be beneficial to the people involved in the trials if they were represented in the drawing up of schemes.
    Mr. William O'Brien: It is clear from the contributions from the Opposition side of the House that there is intense interest in the consumer. This is in line with the information and declarations that we had in Committee, that the Secretary of State for the Environment has the interests of consumers at heart and that at all times their interests should be paramount. Those words were used in the explanatory notes that were issued to hon. Members in Committee by the Department of the Environment. On the very question of the interests of the consumer being paramount, the Minister should accept the new clauses that we have proposed, because they would carry out the Secretary of State's intention that the interests of consumers should be looked after and defended.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred to standards of metering and of services, Again, we must ensure that any services provided to consumers under the metering schemes are at all times of the highest possible standard.
    5 pm
    The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) explained that the company in which she has an interest has contacted consumers, made representations to them in some detail and offered to hold public meetings.
    874
    Many other companies that are contemplating introducing trial metering schemes would have contacted their customers. That being so, I put to the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West some questions that I have been asked by my constituents who are involved in a trial scheme; questions that I have put to the Yorkshire water authority, to which I am still awaiting a reply; and questions that have been put to the Minister in Committee, which are still awaiting a reply.
    Will the hon. Member advise the House and her constituents of the tariffs that will be applied by the water company in which she has an interest? What will the tariff procedure be? Will the North West Surrey water company introduce the scheme in the area? How will people be charged for water following the trials? What standing charges will be attached to the scheme? What will be the increase in standing charges for water supply and sewage disposal? Those questions are relevant to the new clauses that we are proposing. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member if she will explain to the House and to the people involved in trials what the tariff structure will be and how standing charges will be affected for metering of water and disposal of sewage.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I will not respond at length because the debate is about the principle of having metering trials and how they should be conducted. I drew upon the company with which I am associated as an example, but I do not want to turn the debate into a discussion of its practices, good though they are. I say only that people want information, but that there is no anxiety. People are used to electricity and gas charges based on metering, so there should be no paranoia that there is a conspiracy against the consumer. In fact, many people have requested that their supplies be metered. The purpose of having consultation and a public meeting is that all those matters can be clarified.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is clear to hon. Members that the North West Surrey water company has not yet decided how to charge consumers when it introduces metering trials. The purpose of the new clauses is to ensure that people involved in metering trials will be given all the information well in advance of the trials, so that they can ask further questions if they are dissatisfied with the tariffs of the various water companies and authorities.
    The document that we received in Committee states:
    "The Government intend to monitor each trial very carefully and in particular will be looking at the nature of complaints from customers and how they are dealt with."
    If customers are not advised of the charges, how the tariffs will apply and how standing charges will be influenced by the metering trials, how will they be able to make representations to the Secretary of State in line with the directive issued by him? Labour Members consider that it is unfair, unjust and unreal to bring in legislation that does not explain in detail the consequences to consumers involved in trials.
    The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West has compared water metering with gas and electricity metering. The difference is that, unlike water, people can choose between gas and electricity, but there is no alternative to water. People can manage without gas and electricity but they cannot manage without water, so we should not compare gas and electricity with water.
    Ms. Walley: Will my hon. Friend comment on the information that 80 per cent. of gas and electricity bills

    875
    relate to the volume of gas and electricity used, whereas only 20 per cent. of a water bill applies to the water used? That raises the question: how much of a bill relates to the infrastructure and standing charges which must be paid?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) introduces an important and pertinent point. Furthermore, the tariff structure is causing concern among people, because every water authority offers people the right to have water meters if they wish. Meters are available to domestic consumers if they want to take advantage of them. Water companies are dragooning people into water meter trials, and that is unfair, undemocratic and alien to what we believe.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In relation to people having heating or water, I give the example of a working-class family with four children. The family may spend the entire evening in the same room to cut down heating costs, but when it comes to bathing those children, unless they are put into one bath, the family will have to pay more for water. That is the essence of the issue. It is a matter of principle. I shall do very well out of water metering, because I do not always live at my home, but if I had five children I would do very badly out of it. Water metering will cause more burdens to be put on to the shoulders of ordinary working people. That is exactly why we should oppose it.
    Mr. O'Brien: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was dealt with at length in Committee. In my constituency, where a trial is taking place, people are afraid of the results of the trial. Some people are refusing to take up tenancies in council houses in the trial area because they are afraid of the consequences. I have received a report concerning council houses, but there could be a blight on private houses. Owners may have difficulty in selling houses in the metering area, because people will not know what is involved in the meter trial areas.
    The real issue with which we are concerned is what the tariffs and cost will be to the consumer. In the Yorkshire water authority area people have been advised that the rising block tariff will be used, but no one is prepared to explain how it will apply to them. We are making the point in new clause I that, prior to the commencement of a water metering trial, representatives of the water undertakers should contact my constituents, and every other person involved, to explain what the cost and charges will be when the meters are installed. Failing that, my constituents cannot make representations to the Secretary of State before the metering trial starts; therefore, their views cannot be taken into consideration. The aim of the new clause is that, before trials start, contact should be made with the people concerned. They should have the right to make representations through the consumer organisations, or through the local authority, if they are council tenants, or direct to the Secretary of State or the Minister. If consumers do not have that right and are contacted before the metering trials start, they should not be included in the metering trial areas. That is the point that we are making in the new clause.
    Finally, as has been explained on more than one occasion, different water companies and authorities are planning different ways of applying the metering trials. I understand that in my area all the meters will be installed in the properties. We have been advised that in other areas
    876
    meters will be fixed to a stop tap either in the curtilage of the property or on the footpath. If properties and households are going to be disturbed by tradesmen entering to fit the meters, examine the plumbing and perhaps install new pipes to ensure that the meters can work, it is important that this exercise of informing people of the consequences and of the action to be undertaken is carried out. It is important that the people affected should be informed at every stage on what is to take place. That is the purpose of the new clause.
    We put it to the Minister and his supporters that the new clause is constructive. It is there to help the people who are going to be compulsorily involved in the meter trial areas. I hope that we shall have their co-operation this afternoon.
    I made the point in Committee—and the Minister said that he would look into it—that if consultations are to be effective and constructive they must apply to everyone. When the first scheme was planned the geographical area in my constituency included a large industrial opencast coal working. A few weeks after the declaration by the Yorkshire water authority that the scheme would be carried out, it was found that the opencast coal site had been taken out of the scheme. Clearly, there had been some consultation with a customer who did not want to get involved in the scheme, or that customer made representations highlighting his situation, and he was taken out of the scheme.
    If that principle can apply to the British Coal Opencast Executive, why can it not apply to my constituents who do not want to take part in the meter trials? There must be some explanation why the British Coal Opencast Executive can suddenly be taken out of the scheme because it does not want to be included, but my constituents, 90 per cent. of whom signed a petition rejecting the meter trial scheme, cannot be taken out. I put it to the Minister that if it is right for the British Coal Opencast Executive to be taken out of the scheme, it is right for the rest of the people who object to be taken out.
    5.15 pm
    In the light of the background to the new clauses and the amendment which are before the House this afternoon, I appeal to the Minister to give careful consideration to the points that we have made and to accept these proposals. We believe that they are in line with the declaration of the Secretary of State and that they are for the benefit of consumers in the meter trial areas.
    Mr. Moynihan: I shall deal first with new clause 1.
    Hon. Members who followed the proceedings of the Committee that considered this Bill will be aware that the Government consider it very important that a full consultation exercise take place in the proposed metering trial areas both before and during the trials. This is why, under clause 4(4) of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required, when considering a metering trial scheme for approval, to have regard to the consultations about the proposal or about the implementation, effect and operation of the scheme which have been or are to be conducted with persons who are likely to be or have been affected by the scheme. My right hon. Friend is also required to have regard to the handling of any representations about the implementation, effect or operation of the scheme. Those water authorities and companies that said that they would like to carry out a trial were asked some time ago to keep records of all

    877
    consultation and its results. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the scope and results of such consultation very carefully indeed when considering schemes submitted for approval.
    Many undertakers have already begun this consultation exercise. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) about the position in her constituency. They have done this on an entirely voluntary basis. For example, I have a copy here of a letter which the Bristol waterworks company sent out to various bodies likely to be affected by the trials. Those bodies included local Members of this House, councillors, and local branches of the citizens advice bureau, the Confederation of British Industry, Age Concern, Pensioners Voice, the Department of Health and Social Security, the local trading standards office and many more. This is proof, if proof were needed, of how seriously the industry regards the consultation process and the need to allow good time for it.
    The Government are also particularly concerned that individual customers likely to take part in the trials are given full information. This will probably be in the form of an information pack on, for example, the purpose of the trials, customers' legal rights and obligations in relation to metering, how to read and test the meter, what happens if a meter is found to be inaccurate, guidance on typical water consumption, and the name, address and telephone number of someone at the water utility to answer their queries.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to make one point. Out of all the information that has been put forward — and I made the point that the Yorkshire water authority is in my constituency—where is there any reference to what it will cost the consumers, what tariff structure will be applied — the Minister reported that there are four different structures — and will it increase standing charges?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question by drawing to his attention the fact that before the Secretary of State can approve any trial he must give due consideration to each of the points that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. He must know the tariff structure that will be used and the method of billing, and he will have to take into consideration precisely how each water undertaker that is involved with the trials wishes to use them. I expect that there will be a range of tariff structures. The purpose of the trials is for the Water Authorities Association to look at a range of meters, charging procedures and tariffs. They will be evaluated. That is why so much attention has been given to the proposed site areas by the association. It has used the ACORN model to make sure that a socio-economic cross-section is studied. It has taken particular account of a variety of infrastructure problems that are faced in rural areas and heavily built-up urban areas. All that is very important.
    I take this opportunity in reply to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to say that it is vitally important to emphasise that the trial areas have not been chosen on the basis of party political representation. The trial areas have been proposed by the Water Authorities Association to the Government, and the Secretary of State, in making up his mind whether to
    878
    approve each of the trials, has to take into account all of the points that I have just mentioned, and indeed each and every one of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has said that the Secretary of State will want to know everything about tariff systems and charges, but when will customers know about this, and will they have an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State if a tariff structure is alien to them? When will they get to know when the structures will be applied?
    Mr. Moynihan: The consumers will know in advance the final proposals that will be put to the Secretary of State, and they will have the opportunity—I stress that —to make representations individually to the Secretary of State about the proposed trials, or they will be able to make representations jointly. They will be able to see in advance of the trial being submitted exactly what the water undertakers wish to put into effect in a trial area. They will have the opportunity to make representations individually, whether they are in favour of the trial, or collectively if they are against it. It saddens me to hear that a mini-referendum or questionnaire has been put out in the trial area that is covered by the hon. Gentleman's constituency, when no firm decision has been reached about holding a proposed trial scheme in that area. That questionnaire has been put out before the people there even know the tariff structure or the cost effect.
    Yorkshire water authority, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, has yet to calculate the tariff to be used in its trial. I believe that it has been made known to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken up the issue so assiduously, that it is likely to be dealt with by a rising block tariff, with a relatively low standard charge. It is designed to recover the same amount of charges through the trial scheme that is covered by the rateable values. That is the promise and the water authority is now working on the details. It is a matter not simply of considering the details in the Yorkshire area, but of co-ordinating the scheme with other water authorities. I am glad to have this opportunity of reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the views of consumers and of his constituents will be taken into account fully. Consumers will be able to make direct representations to the Secretary of State.
    We believe that the best means of bringing the full information about the trials to individual consumers is in the form of an information pack. We believe that that might also be the most cost-effective method. An information pack could be retained by consumers for future reference. That could not be achieved by a telephone inquiry or a doorstep visit, as the new clause proposes. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that some people would be alarmed by a telephone approach, although that was written into the new clause that he proposed. He has a point. It is important to find the best way of reaching consumers. The best way to do so, in the Government's view, is by using an information pack.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that polling organisations and other surveyors of public opinion would usually expect no more than a 15 per cent. return from a personalised letter? Does the Minister accept, in the general sense of this point, that people do have some

    879
    reservations about a personal telephone approach? Does he therefore guarantee that every consumer will be visited personally by a water board official?
    Mr. Moynihan: That is not an undertaking that I can or will give. What I can say is that each and every household in the trial areas will be contacted by post, certainly in the first instance. I expect that some assiduous undertakers will wish to visit each household. That is a decision for them. What is essential is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that an adequate consultation exercise has taken place. If that is not the case, and a number of households in a trial area are not contacted, I would be of the view that that is less than satisfactory consultation. I am sure that the water undertakers will ensure that a comprehensive consultation exercise will take place to make sure that every household is aware of the broad outline and the details of the proposed trial.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister say, in the light of that statement, that he will issue guidelines to water authorities on that specific point, to encourage individual contacts?
    Mr. Moynihan: We have not just issued guidelines; we have written that requirement into the Bill. We have made it clear in clause 4 exactly what we believe the water authorities should do to satisfy the Secretary of State that the proposed metering trial will go ahead and that the methodology is suited to the particular circumstances. That must be right.
    I am confident, not least because of the exhaustive and sometimes exhausting debates in Committee, that water undertakers will take due note of the importance of consultation. Indeed, in response to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, who was particularly keen that I should write to the chairman of the Water Authorities Association, may I say that I have done so and brought to his attention the fact that effective consultation was recognised as being very important to those consumers affected by the trials. I am happy to allow a copy of the letter to be sent to any hon. Member who is interested in the subject. It is right and proper that a copy of that letter is sent to every right hon. and hon. Member who served on the Standing Committee.
    As a further safeguard to ensure that customers are given adequate information, clause 5 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations supplementing the provisions in relation to various clauses, including metering. Clause 5(3)(e) will require water undertakers to include with any demand for payment information about the fixing of charges that may be specified by the Secretary of State. My officials have already held talks with the water industry and consumer bodies, such as LACOTs, on the contents of the regulations. As a result, I expect a full range of relevant information will be supplied on or with each demand for payment. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that new clause 1 is both unnecessary and unworkable, and I call on the House to reject it.
    Turning to new clause 3, let me first deal with drinking water. There has been much misinformed speculation about this in the press and elsewhere. It should not need me to tell the House that our drinking water is perfectly safe to drink; of course it is. Millions of people up and down the land have been drinking the water from their taps all their lives without any harm at all, and they know that perfectly well. There is nothing which passes our lips
    880
    in the course of a day—hon. Members have experience of many other things which pass their lips—that is more wholesome than the drinking water that is taken from our public supplies.
    Let me make two other points about this. First, right hon. and hon. Members would not find many of their constituents who had as much confidence in supplies of water overseas including those of some of our European Community partner nations. If Members have any doubts about that, they should ask their constituents.
    Secondly, it is deplorable that some irresponsible organisations have attempted to stir up fears about our drinking water. I am thinking in particular of a recent series of advertisements in the national press showing poison coming out of a tap, implying all sorts of harm came from drinking water. That is exactly the sort of mischief-making that could be deeply troubling some readers, and which casts doubts on the credibility of organisations that spread this sort of nonsense. I must say that such things are strongly resented by the thousands of dedicated people in the water supply industry who work hard to ensure the high standard and reliability of our supplies. We owe them a very great deal.
    Mr. Boyes: While recognising the dedication of the people who work in the water industry and putting no blame whatsoever on them, it is still a fact that, according to a written answer of 7 July 1987, the water authorities had been granted 272 derogations under article 9(1)(a) of the EEC regulations. In other words, there were 272 derogations to water authorities where the drinking water was not up to the required standards. That has nothing to do with the people who work in the industry. The Minister cannot hedge his bets by suggesting that we lay the blame on them. We are laying the blame on the Government who are not investing properly in the water industry.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if one compares investment on water by the Labour Administration with that of this Administration, our investment is much better, particularly in view of the cuts that were made by his Government. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about the directive and about ensuring that we try to reduce the number of derogations and take appropriate action.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about the EC drinking water directive. The directive specifies 44 substances which should not exceed certain concentrations, what are called maximum admissible concentrations, in drinking water. The Government are fully committed to the proper implementation of this directive in the United Kingdom. We did at one time tell the industry that, for some substances, they could interpret maximum admissible concentrations as applying to an average of samples, over a period, rather than to every sample. That meant that occasional instances of samples exceeding the limits for particular substances would not have mattered; and it is important to stress that in no case could that have had any conceivable health implication.
    One example is the iron parameter. Iron is, of course, good for one, and at concentrations well above the limit specified in the directive. The iron limit is there because in some circumstances a high iron concentration may colour the water. That happens only infrequently, and where any

    881
    damage occurs, for example, to washing, the consumer may be able to claim compensation from the water supplier.
    Ms. QuinIn view of the different figures that have appeared in the press and those that have been quoted by the Water Authorities Association, will the Minister give the House a clear estimate of how much it will cost fully to comply with the EEC directives?
    Mr. Frank Cook: Get out of that.
    Mr. Moynihan: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) shouts, "Get out of that." However, the hon. Gentleman will know, because, as I am sure the whole House is aware, he is keenly interested in the subject, that extensive discussions are taking place at present with all the water undertakers to make sure that the Government's commitment with regard to the European directives on drinking water quality are met and that appropriate investment is made over a period of time to ensure that those directives are met.
    Hon. Members will know that water must be wholesome, which is what the law provides at present. However, in addition, the Secretary of State will have to be able to state by regulation that water falling below certain standards is not wholesome. The House will recognise that our provisions go beyond what is required by the directive by retaining the important British legal concept of wholesomeness.
    Ms. Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In view of the reply that he has just given, can the Minister confirm that water consumers will be paying the full amount of the investment needed to bring water up to EEC standards? Under those circumstances, would it not be better if the Government spent that money in making the necessary investment rather than calling for money to be wasted in installing meters?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady knows full well that recovery of the costs to ensure that the water that is provided is of a wholesome nature and within the qualities laid down by the Water Act 1973 and the European directives is, of course, passed on to the consumer. I find the hon. Lady's distinction remarkable — that the Government have money but consumers have a different amount of money. Of course, all the money that is spent by the Government is recovered from consumers through taxation.
    The answer about the water undertakers is that they will have to adhere to the Government's policy, which has been clearly defined, about withdrawing derogations from the directive in respect, for example, of nitrate which apply in 48 areas. We shall be considering with the water authorities affected the implications of that withdrawal for their capital programmes. That will mean further investment over several years and those costs will be passed on to the consumers.
    Mr. John Garrett: I am surprised that the Minister referred to iron oxides as being subject to derogations under the EEC guidelines, when nitrates are much more important, especially in the county of Norfolk. Norfolk suffers from substantial pollution from the run-off from nitrogenous fertilisers into the water supply. Does
    882
    he agree that iron oxide may not be shown to be inimical to health, but that nitrates certainly are, through the "blue baby" syndrome at least? Will he kindly explain by what means the water authorities will be required, under the regime that he is proposing, to comply with regulations in respect of nitrates?
    Mr. Moynihan: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question clearly. He will be aware that we are looking at the role that could be played by protecting certain sensitive areas from further nitrate contamination. There are already instances, both here and in other countries, of protective measures reducing nitrate levels significantly. We need to learn from those. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing with colleagues in other Departments that have a keen interest, not least the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, means of identifying the best possible methods of ensuring that we reduce nitrate concentrations, especially in water authorities such as his, Anglian. As he will be aware, there is also a problem in the Severn-Trent area. It is important that we tackle that because we intend to deal with the derogations and the new maximum admissible concentrations within the directive and the understanding that we publicly announced in this House on, I think, 12 December when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on that subject.
    Clearly, there will need to be machinery to ensure that water undertakers comply with the requirements, and that customers continue to have adequate redress for any loss they may suffer through failure on the part of the undertakers. One significant element will be the role of local authorities in checking compliance of drinking water with the standards laid down. That exists at present, and it will be maintained.
    The next part of the new clause deals with interruptions to water supply. The law on water supply and sewerage was subject to an extensive review, culminating in a consultation paper published in 1986. We shall be incorporating proposals resulting from that exercise in the water privatisation Bill. Questions of relative rights of customers and undertakers were carefully considered in that consultation process.
    I do not consider it right to put a blanket liability on water undertakers for all breaks in supply which last more than 12 hours. Water undertakers naturally go to considerable lengths to provide and maintain reliable supplies of water to their customers. Where interruptions to the piped supply are unavoidable, they provide emergency supplies in bowsers or by standpipes. If, however, they fail to maintain supplies, for whatever period of time, without sufficient reason, they are already liable to be sued for damages and prosecuted in the criminal courts. But the law recognises that acts of God or essential works may lead to interruptions and, quite rightly, it exempts undertakers from liability in such cases. That seems an entirely adequate provision and I see no reason to extend it.
    The third limb of the new clause is intended to provide compensation for the foul flooding of customers' homes. I have every sympathy with those whose property or land is flooded by sewage and it is tempting to look to compensation as a means of redress. In fact, however, I do not believe it to be either necessary or desirable. It is unnecessary first because if the flooding is the result of water authority negligence, it can already be sued for

    883
    damages. In addition, water authorities generally make exgratia payments when flooding is caused by the failure of their equipment even though they are not technically negligent. Secondly, it is normally possible to insure against the flooding of property.
    Finally, the new clause attempts to make water authorities liable for flooding from the private sewers and drains serving individual buildings even though they are entirely the responsibility of the owners of the buildings. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
    We are also considering amendment No. 4, which bears on the consultations which undertakers will have to carry out before and during a metering trial. Although I expect that undertakers will in any event wish to consult the various consumer bodies representing consumers in the areas likely to be affected by the trials, I agree that it would be helpful to put the issue beyond doubt. I am therefore pleased to give an undertaking that the Government will table an appropriate amendment in another place. With that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will not press the amendment. However, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against new clause 1 and new clause 3.
    Mr. Boyes: I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking that a new amendment will be tabled in another place that will satisfy what we sought to do in amendment No. 4. It reflects the continuous bombardment that the Minister has faced from the Opposition about consumer interests. Nevertheless, it is good that he is changing his mind at the last moment. However, we cannot accept his argument on new clause 1, and we shall have to press it to a Division.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 270.

    Division No. 161]

    [5.43 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Canavan, Dennis

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Anderson, Donald

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clay, Bob

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Clelland, David

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Coleman, Donald

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Corbett, Robin

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Cousins, Jim

    Barron, Kevin

    Cox, Tom

    Battle, John

    Crowther, Stan

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cryer, Bob

    Bell, Stuart

    Cummings, J.

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Darling, Alastair

    Blair, Tony

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blunkett, David

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Boateng, Paul

    Dewar, Donald

    Boyes, Roland

    Dixon, Don

    Bradley, Keith

    Dobson, Frank

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Doran, Frank

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Douglas, Dick

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Buckley, George

    Dunnachie, James

    Caborn, Richard

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Callaghan, Jim

    Eadie, Alexander

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fatchett, Derek

    884

    Faulds, Andrew

    Maxton, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Meacher, Michael

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Michael, Alun

    Fisher, Mark

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeloy)

    Flannery, Martin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Flynn, Paul

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Foster, Derek

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Foulkes, George

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Fraser, John

    Morley, Elliott

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Galloway, George

    Murphy, Paul

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Nellist, Dave

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    George, Bruce

    O'Brien, William

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Parry, Robert

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Patchett, Terry

    Gould, Bryan

    Pendry, Tom

    Graham, Thomas

    Pike, Peter

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Prescott, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Grocott, Bruce

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hardy, Peter

    Radice, Giles

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Randall, Stuart

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Redmond, Martin

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Henderson, Douglas

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Home Robertson, John

    Rogers, Allan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Howells, Geraint

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hoyle, Doug

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Salmond, Alex

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Illsley, Eric

    Short, Clare

    Ingram, Adam

    Skinner, Dennis

    Janner, Greville

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    John, Brynmor

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Snape, Peter

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Soley, Clive

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kilfedder, James

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Lambie, David

    Stott, Roger

    Lamond, James

    Strang, Gavin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Straw, Jack

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lewis, Terry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Litherland, Robert

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Livsey, Richard

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Turner, Dennis

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wall, Pat

    McAllion, John

    Wallace, James

    McAvoy, Tom

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    McFall, John

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McKelvey, William

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McLeish, Henry

    Wilson, Brian

    McTaggart, Bob

    Winnick, David

    McWilliam, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Madden, Max

    Worthington, Anthony

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Marek, Dr John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Martlew, Eric

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Amess, David

    885

    Amos, Alan

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Ashby, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forth, Eric

    Atkins, Robert

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Atkinson, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    French, Douglas

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gale, Roger

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gill, Christopher

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bellingham, Henry

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bendall, Vivian

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Benyon, W.

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Gow, Ian

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Boswell, Tim

    Grist, Ian

    Bottomley, Peter

    Ground, Patrick

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Grylls, Michael

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bowis, John

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Brazier, Julian

    Hannam, John

    Bright, Graham

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Harris, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hayward, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Butcher, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Butler, Chris

    Hill, James

    Butterfill, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Cash, William

    Howard, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

    Chope, Christopher

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cope, John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Irvine, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Irving, Charles

    Cran, James

    Jack, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jackson, Robert

    Curry, David

    Janman, Timothy

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Dicks, Terry

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Dover, Den

    Knowles, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lang, Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Eggar, Tim

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Evennett, David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Farr, Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Favell, Tony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Mans, Keith

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Marland, Paul

    886

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Squire, Robin

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stern, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stevens, Lewis

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Needham, Richard

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stokes, John

    Neubert, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Paice, James

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Patnick, Irvine

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thome, Neil

    Pawsey, James

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thurnham, Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tredinnick, David

    Price, Sir David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Raff an, Keith

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Redwood, John

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Walden, George

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walters, Dennis

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Ward, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Watts, John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wells, Bowen

    Rost, Peter

    Wheeler, John

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Whitney, Ray

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wilshire, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shersby, Michael

    Woodcock, Mike

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Yeo, Tim

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speed, Keith

    Mr. Richard Ryder and

    Speller, Tony

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 2

    PROVISIONS RELATING TO NEW BUILDINGS
    The requirements of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 shall not apply until the completion of the metering trials and a report on the metering trials has been approved by Parliament.—[Mr. O'Brien.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    When the Bill was published, paragraph 1 of schedule 1 was not included. The Minister later decided to amend the schedule to include paras (1)(a) and (1)(b) to apply to the provisions relating to the installation of meters. Paragraph I contains a new power introduced by the Minister to allow the water undertakers to insist that the people responsible for building, adapting or altering

    887
    premises should install a meter in the premises or that plumbing should be arranged to allow a meter to be installed later.
    Paragraph 1 substantially alters the Bill as originally drafted. When amendments to schedule 1 were tabled in Committee, the Opposition raised certain issues. However, because there were no explanatory notes and because the information provided on this matter had been inadequate, we wanted to ensure that all the points were covered when the Bill was brought back to the House. That is why the Minister should consider the new clause carefully and seriously before any action is taken.
    Paragraph 1(2) enables undertakers to insist on the requirements that I outlined earlier being met, even when there is no immediate intention of charging by measure. For example, some undertakers may want to wait for the results of the metering trials before deciding on a move to more widespread metering. That is the basis upon which we present our case. We believe that it would be in the interests of the contractors and of those people altering or adapting a building to wait until a decision has been taken about the metering trials before taking a further decision on widespread metering. Anything other than that would create the impression that decisions on universal metering and the systems that will be applied by the various water companies and authorities have already been made. The impression might also be created that metering trials were introduced to provide information that would be available if universal metering was applied.
    I believe that decisions have already been taken about the application of universal metering, on how the meters will be installed in properties and how the law will apply to contractors building new properties. In other words, paragraph 1 means that all new properties will have a meter or facilities to enable a meter to be installed.
    It was made clear to members of the Committee, to other hon. Members and to the public that some water authorities and water companies have no intention of putting meters in properties. It has been decided by some water companies — and, indeed, put into practice in some areas—that meters for measuring domestic water supplies in bulk should be situated on the footpath or in the curtilage of the dwelling, near the stop tap.
    6 pm
    An exhibition held in the House a few months ago demonstrated a meter designed to fit on a footpath which required no provision or alteration of any plumbing inside the dwelling, and hence no involvement on the part of the consumer outside whose property the meter was installed.
    Surely, if such a metering system successfully meets the requirements of the water industry, and all the problems that can develop in metering trials—including weather and the type and flow of water being used — without disturbing the household, paragraph 1 is redundant. There is little useful purpose in telling contractors, and the people whose properties are to be adapted after a certain date, that they will have to make provision for the installation of a meter, or provide facilities in the property for a meter to be installed. If there is no cause for such an installation, we are surely being premature in accepting such a provision in the Bill.
    I understand that two water authorities are now using the meters to which I referred, and that six private water companies, and the Welsh water authority, are also considering the possibility of their introduction. Meter
    888
    trials are taking place in more ways than one. We feel that it would be in everyone's interest to wait until the trials have been carried out before considering whether provision should be made and expenses undertaken by contractors — and, indeed, by individuals who may be having their properties altered—for the installation of a meter. That might involve plumbing adaptation to enable the meter to be installed in a convenient place, which, under the Bill in its present form, would be at the discretion not of the consumer—the owner or tenant of the property — but of the water undertaking. Such arrangements could be expensive for consumers.
    We would prefer a system of voluntary metering to continue. However, if metering is to be compulsory, we consider it unfair and unjust for people to have to go to the expense of providing for a meter when there is no evidence of the need for one.
    A press release put out by the Water Companies Association on 29 September 1987 states:
    "'It is important', said the Associations"—
    that is, the Water Authorities and Water Companies Associations—
    "'that extensive trials of metering and assessment of their impact in demand take place before decisions are taken on the general use of water meters.'"
    The Minister should consider those views carefully when he is asking his colleagues to reject new clause 2. Unless he can give an assurance that consumers will incur no additional expense as a result of the addition to schedule 1, I believe that to press for the rejection of the new clause would be against the best interests of consumers.
    Page 2 of the press release states:
    "The trials are likely to have a major influence on how we charge for water in the future. Metering could be the answer. Ministers will consider consumer interests before approving any trial scheme."
    Before there is any suggestion of major metering provisions, says the Water Companies Association, we should wait until the trials have taken place and we have evidence of the impact on those living in the trial areas. If we accept that view, paragraph I should not apply.
    I have a considerable interest in the Yorkshire water authority, as the trial area is in my constituency. I know how people are thinking and what provisions they are requesting in the event of a meter trial taking place. A report of a meeting held on 20 October last year between officers of the Yorkshire water authority and members of Wakefield metropolitan district council states:
    "It is important that Yorkshire Water learns how to deal effectively with the many problems which metering on this scale will raise, such as …The practical problems in installing meters—where do we put them—? What should we do about defect on the customers plumbing system?"
    Before any universal metering is considered, the authority would like to study the results of the trials being held in the Normanton area. If we accept paragraph 1, the position described by the Yorkshire water authority will be superseded by the new clause. The authority's points are not being heard or heeded by the Minister.
    The practical operators of the water system wish to obtain information, in line with the Government directive, based on the results obtained where meters were installed in a large geographical area involving different sections of a community. The water authorities want to know the practical problems involved with installing meters and where to put them. The water authority in Yorkshire needs that information to decide whether meters should be

    889
    installed in properties. I believe that it is in the interest of future metering that we should wait until the trials have been considered so that there is evidence to substantiate whether meters should be situated in premises and what installation would mean.
    The Water Companies Association believes that, before decisions are taken on the general use of water meters, careful consideration should be given to the impact on demand and to where the meters should be situated. If we accept the view of the Water Companies Association, we should accept new clause 2.
    On 27 October there was a second meeting between officials of the Yorkshire water authority and members of the Wakefield district council. It was reported that:
    "the Yorkshire Water Board accepted that metering at best would be marginally economic and in submitting the various suggested areas had drawn the Secretary of State's attention to the problems they envisaged. In the end, however, it would have to prove to be an economic proposition for the Board to pursue universal metering throughout its area."
    In other words, the Yorkshire water authority has doubts about the economic viability of the scheme that it wishes to apply in the Normanton area. It believes that it could be "marginally economic". It has submitted suggestions to the Secretary of State regarding the areas involved and it requires proof that the proposition is economic. It believes that that assurance should be forthcoming from the evidence that is obtained from the trial meter area. Such information is required before the Yorkshire water authority can proceed with universal metering throughout its area. The message from the Yorkshire water authority to the Government is, "Please do not extend the area of compulsory metering until we have had the opportunity to see what the tests will reveal".
    In Committee we were informed that the trial areas would be studied for three years. We were also informed that if a scheme, as suggested to the Secretary of State by the water undertakers, was not working as had been thought, it could be amended and then submitted to the Secretary of State for further consideration. Therefore, a scheme could continue for between three years and five years depending on what information was received from the trial area.
    Before the Government insist that additional expense should be incurred by contractors and people involved with the alteration of premises where meters may be installed or provision made to provide a meter, the evidence obtained from the trial areas should be submitted for consideration. Obviously this matter is giving rise to concern not just to Labour Members, but to people outside the House who are following these matters most carefully, including the Water Companies Association. The Water Companies Association is anxious to have all the information before considering the general use of water meters.
    On 17 December the Minister said in Committee:
    "There is nothing to stop consumers in a trial area from putting forward a request to the water undertaker to try some new technology. Consumers may say to their water authority, `We believe that it will assist you in formulating more precise answers to a number of the imponderables if we volunteer ourselves for further trial work.' That would be a matter for the undertaker, but he may decide that it would be helpful." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 December 1987; c. 598.]
    890
    6.15 pm
    Therefore, within the trial area, a suggestion may be made that there should be an amendment to the scheme that has been installed by the water undertakers. If new technology means that a meter could be changed in a few years, there is little purpose in saying to contractors and people who are having a dwelling built or altered that they must make provision for that meter or adapt the plumbing to take it. Such expense could be wasted after two or three years as a result of new technology. We believe that the Bill will lead to such a situation. For that reason, the Minister must pay careful consideration to the new clause.
    On 19 January I asked the Minister in Committee:
    "Who will carry out the inspection to decide that the pipes are inadequate and who will pay for that inspection? The pipes are not visible for inspection so some excavation will be required. Therefore, there are likely to be problems. Who will be responsible for making that decision and who will bear the cost of any inspections?"
    Such inspections will apply to all properties that are being adapted or improved after the date that has been suggested in the Bill. There remain questions as to who will be responsible for certain charges and costs. In Committee the Minister replied:
    "The latter question is significant, but I should like to answer it a little later as I am in some doubt and wish to clarify the matter with my officials. I am not sure whether the matter would be dealt with by charging a connection fee or whether a separate cost would be levied directly by the water inspectors who would inspect the work.
    The Committee will have noted that there is a shift in emphasis in this legislation, as compared with previous legislation, in regard to who pays. Whereas, in general, there was an onus on the owner of a property to pay under the 1945 and 1951 Acts, in regard to metering, the shift is now towards the undertaker paying". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 19 January 1988; c. 672.]
    If we are to accept that argument — I have no reason not to accept it — it poses great questions as to the benefit and the reason for schedule 1, paragraph 1, as introduced at a later stage in Committee. Perhaps the Minister could develop his reply of 19 January as it applies to schedule 1.
    If there are excavations and reasons for extra costs when a property is adapted to meet the requirements laid down in schedule 1, paragraph 1, there will be further problems, as we outlined in Committee, unless we are given the necessary information and assurances. Obviously there are a number of issues that must be considered before we can accept schedule 1, paragraph 1 as presented. "The water briefing", which is a bulletin produced by the Water Authorities Association, refers to charges. The question of charges is very important. People want to know what this measure will cost and are asking, "How much extra will I have to pay? What benefit will I receive? Will it end the question of spiralling charges?" The same questions have been posed to the Water Authorities Association, and I shall quote from the July 1987 issue of "The water briefing". Paragraph 4.1 says:
    "Pricing policies and controls are a key component of the whole regulatory package. Water authorities have made clear that the uniform pricing formula suggested in Professor Littlechild's report, with no compensating factor to allow for the differing circumstances and obligations of different authorities, is unlikely to provide the solution. They will wish to discuss pricing mechanisms and their effects in greater detail with the Government."
    It is important that all the concerns in this regard, including the proposals to make provision to install a meter in new properties, and all the proposals are

    891
    discussed in depth. Consideration will have to be given to all the issues that arise before any legal administration is set up.
    The Minister must pay heed to what the water companies are saying. The Minister should give careful attention to new clause 2 because it must be decided whether the people involved will have to meet the necessary expenditure or whether it will be met by the Government.
    I should like to remind the Minister of the notes on clauses and schedules that were given to members of the Committee. They say that clause 4 establishes
    "a special charging regime designed to protect consumer interests .…."
    Page 12 of the explanatory notes says:
    … The Secretary of State will himself ensure that the interests of customers whose premises are included in the trials are protected."
    We are saying that it is not only the customers in trial areas whose interests should be protected by everyone who could be a victim of these meter trials.
    Before the meter trials have finished and before evidence about them is submitted to the Secretary of State and before we know whether the consumer interests will at all times be safeguarded, the Government are saying that provision shall be made whereby the water undertakings can insist that a meter or service pipe can be installed in new properties for supplying water. Alternatively, it is said that provision will have to be made so that a meter can be installed later.
    That is not in the best interests of the consumer. It contradicts what the Secretary of State outlined in the Bill and in the explanatory notes — that at all times the interest of the customer is paramount.
    The explanatory note on page 15 says:
    "The Government intends to monitor each trial very carefully, and in particular will be looking at the nature of complaints from customers and how they are dealt with."
    It is difficult to apply the principle and practicalities of the explanatory note to people who will be told that they must make provision for a meter in their dwelling before the trial periods are finished and a report submitted to the Secretary of State. An unfair burden will be placed on people who will have to meet that demand. The Minister must give an assurance from the Dispatch Box on this issue.
    New clause 2 is important and has a meaning. If there is to be sincerity in this legislation, which will apply in my constituency and in 10 other areas, we must be assured that hardship will not be experienced by people who will have to install meters when building or adapting new dwellings.
    I remind the Minister that the water companies have said that the metering trials and the assessment of their impact on demand should take place before decisions are taken on the general use of water meters. If the Minister accepts that view of the water companies, he must accept new clause 2. If he does not, how will the Government ensure that people adapting or building new dwellings after the suggested date—when they will have to install provisions for meters or install meters in their properties —will be fairly dealt with? I ask the Minister to answer those questions.
    Ms. Walley: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 2, which goes to the heart of the Government's legislation.
    892
    The Minister said in the previous debate that he was prepared to take on board considerations that acknowledged the important role played by consumer bodies, trading standard officers and so on. If he is prepared to be sincere and take account of the well-formulated views of those organisations, he should extend that sincerity and apply it to the Government's arguments for compulsory water meter trials, which are the basis of the Bill. We sat through hour after hour in Committee and were given every assurance by the Minister that, when selecting areas for compulsory water metering, every regard would be given to socio-economic, climatic, geographic and geological factors. It seems odd that these trials will take place in areas that, bar one, are Conservative-controlled.
    We are about to embark on water metering trials to establish the correct way forward to replace the present water rate charges. Why did the Minister, by way of a planted question on 2 December, give an undertaking that he would move an amendment that would provide for the compulsory installation of water meters at the earliest opportunity—certainly as soon as the Bill becomes law?
    The Minister has a chance to prove that the Government are sincere by supporting new clause 2. There must be some reason why the Government are so anxious to rush through this proposal. Why cannot the Government wait until the results in the survey areas are known?
    I find the Minister's reply of 2 December quite contradictory. In reply to the question, he said:
    "We are concerned about metering the consumption and we believe that it would be a far more accurate guide to measure and update consumption figures to assess whether metering is the best way to move forward."
    However, almost in the same breath, in reply to the question,
    "Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to start by introducing compulsory metering of new houses?",
    the Minister said:
    "The simple answer is 'Yes'. For that reason we have introduced an amendment to be considered during the latter stages of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill currently in Committee." —[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 1430 c. 919.]
    The Minister's reply to that planted question—it had to be planted—demonstrated the Government's insincerity. Compulsory water meters either represent an experimental way of deciding the best way forward or they are connected to some preconceived plan that will hasten the privatisation of the water industry. I support the new clause.
    6.30 pm
    Ms. Quin: I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). The announcement made during Environment questions took many of us by surprise, because it was made in answer to the third supplementary question. It seemed to have been slipped in at the end, although it was obviously a matter of fundamental importance to this Bill and to our debates in Committee. It is right that that point should be made.
    Furthermore, the fact that the Government have decided to provide for the installation of meters in all new properties seems to suggest that their mind is firmly made up and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, the trials are nothing but a sham. What is the purpose of having trials if the Government have

    893
    made up their mind already? Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on this point by listing for us the alternative forms of charging for water, other than water metering.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not delay the Labour Front Bench spokesman for very long. However, new clause 2 is important because it is a test of the Government's genuine commitment to the metering trials. There are no two ways about it. The Government say that they are serious about a metering trials scheme. They say they wish to try metering to see whether it works and to decide whether to opt for compulsory metering. They say that they are serious about examining the difficulties that will undoubtedly arise for some of the poorest in our society, which need to be taken into account and which may be a bar to such compulsory metering. If they believe that, they should not be proposing measures that clearly pre-empt such a scheme.
    Schedule 1(1) is aimed at preparing the ground for a compulsory metering scheme right across the country before the metering trials have even taken place. Representatives of my local water board raised the issue with me before the Minister had tabled the amendment and before he had publicly announced it. I was asked, "Will you be supporting the Government amendment? We think that it is important so that we can get metering installed as soon as possible after the trial scheme." In effect, they were saying, "This measure is important because it will allow us to put in compulsory metering at the earliest possible opportunity" — in an area where there has been no trial scheme. In other words, the measure is a way of bringing forward privatisation and compulsory metering across the board.
    If Ministers were genuine about wanting a trial scheme the results of which they could examine and from which they were prepared to learn lessons—they might have to decide that compulsory metering as proposed does not allow for adequate consumer protection or for the protection of those who most need it—they would not be putting forward this proposal, which they did not even come up with when they were drafting the Bill. This proposal has been advanced as a result of pressure from the water authorities, which want privatisation pushed through as early as possible—not with any thought for the consumer or the results of a metering trial scheme. I hope that the new clause will be passed because it is important.
    Mr. Boyes: We have had a good debate on this important matter. The Minister must be most embarrassed about the proposal, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) said, he tried to sneak in this change of policy at Question Time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said, that took us by surprise. It is most unfortunate that the Minister had to have recourse to a planted question to announce a policy change that has serious implications. As my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, it nails the lie about the water metering trials being trials. I suspect that the trials may be intended to establish whether the hardware works. They will have nothing to do with people or consumers. The Government have made up their mind that the trials will be successful whatever happens.
    894
    During the debate on new clause 1, I reiterated the question that I asked the Minister a dozen times or more in Committee. How will the Government determine whether the trials have been successful? How are they going to analyse the results? We never got an answer to that question in Committee, and this evening I again challenged the Minister to reply to that specific question, which is of great interest to all Opposition Members. We need to know in advance what criteria will be used to judge failure or success so that we can measure the results against them. If the Minister gives us no criteria, it is obvious that he will say that the scheme was successful.
    The other reason why we think that the trials are a sham piece of kidology is that there are two Bills running in parallel — the Public Utilities Transfers and Water Charges Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. The Minister said in Standing Committee:
    "we have announced, in the Local Government Finance Bill, our intention to abolish domestic rates from April 1990. New domestic properties and dwellings created by conversions will not be rated from that date. They will come under the new system. Therefore, it is necessary that water undertakers have an alternative means of charging for their services to such properties." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 January 1988; c. 666.]
    In other words, irrespective of how long we take on this Bill or of what happens in connection with it, the Minister, the Secretary of State and others in the Department of the Environment have already determined that water metering for new houses is absolutely essential because of the abolition of domestic rates and their replacement by a poll tax.
    If the poll tax comes in and the Minister has no method of charging for water other than by metering, whatever happens in the trials he will not dare do anything other than announce in one and a half or two years that the trials have been successful. He will have no alternative. Of course this is a sham, of course it is idiocy and of course the Minister, who time after time has proved himself to be extremely intelligent and knowledgeable on these matters, must find it extremely embarrassing to have to push this proposal.
    I am told that the source of the information was the Minister himself.
    Mr. Moyniham indicated dissent.,
    Mr. Boyes: I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that civil servants are accountable. If so, we shall say that civil servants should have better things to do. I do not believe that the information came from a civil servant. I believe that it came from a member of the press who was doodling. According to the Daily Mirror, the Minister made 640 interventions in Committee. He is proud of that, but I take it as a compliment to Opposition Members for having pressed the Government so hard in Committee.
    In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East, for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for Stoke-on-Trent, North, for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked the Minister the most difficult, penetrating and pointed questions. As a consequence, the Minister has been forced to intervene on all those occasions. Although he might claim a record—if it is a record, he can take credit for it — I hope that he will explain to his civil servants and to the Secretary of State why he had to make all those interventions.

    895
    I wish to ask the Minister to comment further on a matter which greatly concerns Opposition Members—the activities of the East Worcestershire Waterworks company. I do not question the integrity of the people who run that company, or of the dedicated staff who work there, but the company has not acted correctly; indeed, it may have acted illegally. I raised this matter in Committee when it was brought to my attention that the company was issuing a letter to customers about water metering.
    Like many other companies, that company offered customers the opportunity of voluntary metering, provided that the cost of installation of the meter was borne by the consumer. In September 1985, the company decided that properties with new supplies should be connected automatically to water meters.
    The letter to customers started, "Dear Customer", so it was not a personal letter to individual consumers. It was a general circular letter, so presumably everyone concerned received the same letter. The letter went on:
    "It has been normal practice for the Water Industry in the United Kingdom to charge for water supplies to domestic properties on the basis of rateable value of the property supplied which is used as a proxy to reflect the quantity of water likely to be used at the property.
    The relationship has come under increasing attack in recent years on the grounds of unfairness."
    That may be a value judgment by the East Worcestershire Waterworks company and many Opposition Members would claim that it is fairer to use rateable values than meters. That is what we have argued in the Bill. However, we do not agree with that judgment.
    The letter continued:
    "In order to overcome this criticism and to make charges which properly reflect the quantity of water used by our customers, the Company adopted a policy of metering all new domestic properties with effect from the 1st September, 1985."
    When the East Worcestershire Waterworks company issued that letter, the proposal to introduce compulsory metering of all new properties was not even a twinkle in the Minister's eye.
    6.45 pm
    As I am not a barrister or a legal expert, I would not know whether the company has acted irregularly or improperly, but I could seek legal advice on that. The letter was signed by Mr. G. A. Booker, chief executive. The letter did not state that metering was optional. As the Minister knows, when people receive an official letter, they believe that the contents reflect the law, and that therefore it must be correct.
    When I raised the matter with the Minister, he agreed to take it up with the East Worcestershire Waterworks company on behalf of Opposition Members. I thank the Minister for that. He has sent me two letters, dated 29 January, which deal with this matter. He sent me a copy of the metered water supply agreement form issued by the East Worcestershire Waterworks company and other documents which deal with completion of a meter card. He also sent me a copy of the terms and conditions for the supply of water by meter.
    I have studied those documents, particularly the agreement that the consumer must sign. When I sign agreements, I am accustomed to there being little red boxes which state the individual's rights under consumer law, so that, if he does not like the goods, he can send them back after so many days, not pay any further instalments and withdraw from the signed contract. The agreement makes
    896
    no mention of the consumer's rights, nor does it state the conditions under which he can withdraw from the agreement.
    I highlight this company because it was brought to my attention and because the Minister undertook to check with the water authorities and the water companies whether this was a common practice. Again, I thank him for doing so. All the water companies and water authorities may have done this for some time. The letter dated 29 January that I received from the Minister on 1 February, stated:
    "I am now able to let you have the information which I promised in Committee on 21 January (Official Report, Col. 702) about the general practice of water undertakers on the installation of meters in domestic properties under their present powers. I have written to you separately, as on reflection I think was right, about the position of the East Worcestershire Waterworks Company.
    In the time available, it was not possible to consult all the undertakers individually. But I am advised by their Association that the water authorities do not routinely install meters in new domestic properties. They charge for water on the usual RV basis, unless the customer asks for a meter. The Water Companies' Association report that their members have various policies. East Worcestershire is the only one which arranges for the developers to install a meter and then charges by measure as a matter of policy unless the customer asks for RV charging."
    In none of the documentation supplied to me previously, or on 1 February by the Minister, does it say that the East Worcestershire Waterworks company —which is unique—informed people, either by correspondence or by telephone, that they could opt out. That concerns me greatly.
    This squalid little Bill is all about imposing on people something that they may not want. From now onwards, all new houses will have water meters installed in preparation for metering. Rateable values will have to exist for a long time after the introduction of the poll tax because water meters cannot be incorporated into all houses overnight. However, we are concerned that one water company has acted prematurely.
    The Minister has been true to the spirit of the Bill, but the Government have failed to give us sufficient notice of their amendment concerning meters in new buildings. I hope that the Minister will comment on the East Worcestershire Waterworks company. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton made a lengthy analytical speech and we have given the Minister much to think about. I hope that the strength of our arguments will enable the Minister to concede new clause 2.
    Mr. Moynihan: If this is my 631st intervention—we have the arithmetic talents of a first-rate young lady, Jackie Allen, to thank for that information—the only reason has been my determination to answer the many important interventions put to me. Miss Allen is an assiduous student of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill with a remarkable capacity to count. She is to be commended if she has embarrassed me with her comments.
    One important point that she would have drawn to my attention — the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was right to refer to it again—is how we shall assess the success or otherwise of the trials. We do not see them as scientific experiments—to use the hon. Gentleman's words — to be judged against defined scientific criteria on which one can say that they have succeeded or failed. We regard all the additional

    897
    knowledge in a whole range of issues connected with the trial schemes to be important, and each incremental learning curve along which the water authorities move are successes in their own right because they will bring additional knowledge to the water undertakers. That is essential in determining the outcome of their considerations about the best possible form of charging for water after 1990.
    The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington made an important point about the East Worcestershire Waterworks company. I gave him an undertaking that I would try to make a further statement on that point to the House at the appropriate time. I understand that the East Worcestershire Waterworks company generally has meters installed in new properties by developers and asks the new occupier to sign a measured water supply agreement if he wishes his water charges to be based on the measured flow. The vast majority of customers in new properties choose to sign the agreement and pay for water according to measure.
    I now understand that the company has responded to the concern expressed by hon. Members in Committee and decided to amend its literature to make the option of being charged by rateable value or by measure more apparent to occupiers of new properties. As I said when the issue was raised in Committee—I know that all hon. Members understand this point—I cannot give an opinion on the legality or otherwise of the company's position. That is a matter for the company, its customers and its legal advisers. However, I hope that that additional information, which has been taken up in the national press only today, shows that responsible action has been taken by the East Worcestershire Waterworks company. That action is due as much to the representations made by the Government as to the persistent pressure that the Opposition have applied to the issue and brought regularly to the Committee's attention.
    The new clause raises the important issue of whether, within the constraints of legislation, water undertakers should be left to make their own decisions about future charging policy, or whether Parliament should take their decisions for them. In the Government's view, the industry and its eventual shareholders, not Parliament, are best placed to decide whether a move to metering is worth while.
    In particular, the industry needs to make a decision soon on how to charge for water services to new domestic properties and conversions completed after 1 April 1990 which, as a result of our eagerly awaited reform of the rating system, will not be rated after that date. Schedule 1, paragraph 1, would allow each undertaker to decide whether to meter new domestic connections. It does not require them — I emphasise that — to meter such connections. The decision, quite rightly, is left to each undertaker's commercial judgment.
    However, I expect that each undertaker will take full advantage of that new power since it will give them access to the metering option at minimum inconvenience and expense to themselves, their customers and the construction industry. The Government will expect the building industry and consumer groups to be fully consulted by the water industry in drawing up specifications for use under this provision. We expect that that consultation process will take about one year. In consequence, we do not see
    898
    the provision coming into force until at least one year after the Bill receives Royal Assent, but, for the reasons that I have already mentioned, before 1 April 1990. That, as hon. Members will be aware, would be by commencement order under clause 8(2).
    To postpone the use of those powers until 1993, when the trials are likely to be complete, or later, to allow for the compilation of a report and for approval by Parliament, would, apart from creating enormous problems for the industry in charging for new properties, add to the cost of any later decision to move to more widespread metering. I emphasise that we are talking about new properties, not about requiring water undertakers to meter such connections. We are talking about an opportunity for water undertakers to decide whether to meter such new domestic connections.
    To sum up, the effect of the new clause would be to delay the adoption of widespread metering, if that is what the industry eventually decides to do. I re-emphasise that it is not the Government's intention to pre-empt the outcome of the trials, or to argue at this stage, or indeed at any stage, that their view about charging is sacrosanct and will not take into account the full outcome of the metering trials as the detail of those trials comes to light. Indeed, flat-rate charges are an option which a number of water undertakers are looking at carefully alongside another range of charging systems.
    Some have argued—we looked at this in Committee —that the high level of infrastructural costs that would go towards the traditional standing charges is such that the water supply element would be a small proportion of the total bill. Those who urge that would argue against metering and more in favour of a flat-rate charge. That sort of issue needs to be examined in detail during the metering trials. It is not for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of those; it is for the industry, in the final analysis, to decide on the method of charging that would be most appropriate to its specific circumstances.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister—or the Secretary of State—agreed with the water industry that charging by rateable value will continue into the next century?
    7 pm
    Mr. Moynihan: No, I have not. From 1990, for 10 years, the industry will be able to continue on rateable value, seeking new charging systems to be introduced during that period and not into the next century. That 10-year period — the hon. Gentleman knows that I always try to answer his questions accurately, and it would be misleading to say that the system was going into the next century—will expire and that option will no longer be in place on new year's day in the year 2000. But it will still be there for the undertakers on new year's eve.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: What would happen to a water-connected property that was greatly improved during that time? Would it pay on the basis of a rateable value assessment made before those improvements or would it be possible to have some form of assessment done on that property in the intervening period? If the latter is the case — it is the only thing that would make sense — why could not the same be done for new properties or properties that had just been connected to water?
    Mr. Moynihan: The undertaker will be entitled to use that rateable value and to go over the charging system that

    899
    it wanted, in the full knowledge that the rateable value would not be available in the year 2000, at any stage during the 10-year period. This is an enabling power, as the hon. Gentleman knew when we introduced the complex provisions, to allow undertakers to insist that new properties should be fitted with appropriate technology so that metering could be put in place at an appropriate time. Our reasons for doing so were as much to avoid duplication of cost—
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand that, but, unless I am much mistaken, the Minister has not quite got my point. If there is an option for properties to continue to be charged on the basis of rateable value, is it possible to update that rateable value if the property changes? Is there a possibility of a new rating assessment up until the year 2000?
    Mr. Moynihan: I understand that the answer is no. I must correct a point about which I was trying to be specific earlier. I made a minor error: it will not be on new year's eve in the year 1999. Rateable values will continue to be an option until 31 March in the year 2000. Those extra 100 or so days are relevant in the interests of accuracy. I am grateful to those who have reminded me of that important information, which is now on the record.
    I believe that the main points about the new clause have already been covered in my response. I want now to take up one important point about charging that was raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). Except for certain specific circumstances set out in schedule 1, paragraph 5, the cost of complying with the requirement under the schedule is to be met by the developer. That is critically important, reflecting the shift of emphasis from the consumer to the developer since the earlier legislation of 1945 and 1951. Limited exceptions to the rule in subparagraph (1) are provided for in paragraph 2. They are outlined clearly and concisely. When a meter is installed by or at the request of the undertaker, he must bear the costs of installation and connection, and any expenses of maintaining, repairing or removing a meter in accordance with any requirements of the undertaker; and the expense of any works associated with the installation or connection, or with the maintenance, repair or removal of the meter in accordance with any requirements of the undertaker. Additional limited exceptions are provided in sub-paragraph (2), but I hope that what I have said clarifies the point about charging.
    I ask the House to reject the new clause.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause 4

    REPORT TO PARLIAMENT OF COSTS OF ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION
    The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament all items of expenditure including consultancy fees, incurred by electricity boards or the Electricity Council in facilitating the transfer of their property or functions to another body corporate, arising from the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.—[Mr. Prescott.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    New clause 4 is a somewhat narrower clause dealing with clause 1, which concerns the electricity industry. I
    900
    have read the Committee and Second Reading debates on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. It was a surprise to many of us that the clause should have been included in the Bill. All that I can tell from the debates that have been held is that the Government think that it would be right for the electricity board and the Electricity Council to be able to spend 'their money for consultation and fees on the possible plans that are being prepared for the privatisation of the industry. However, they appeared to fear the fact that NALGO had threatened to take action in the case of a water board, and so the Government have taken this chance to reinforce and state in legislation their view that it would be entirely proper and legal for the electricity board and the Electricity Council to use consultancy fees and to take into account recommendations and considerations on the transfer of their property or functions to another body corporate. The intention of the new clause is to make it clear that the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament all items of expenditure incurred in that way.
    The Opposition's concern is to take this opportunity to debate what sort of reports the Government, or the Electricity Council, have in mind, and why it is necessary to take powers in this way. As the legislation is not yet before the House, one presumes that this is a sort of paving clause. I accept the Minister's statement in Committee that there are no powers in clause 1 — perhaps he will reaffirm that today — to advance any part of the privatisation of the electricity industry. It is merely to prepare the reports and advice that the Government and the CEGB need to prepare and influence the legislation that is to come.
    What are the reports about—the financial problems that will arise from privatisation? Are they about the consumer, the nuclear part of the industry or other ports of call? Those are all essential matters that will be directly affected by the Government's proposals for and commitment to privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
    This debate gives the Government an opportunity to give us an idea of what they had in mind. What has influenced the Government to want to spend their money in this way? If action were taken by NALGO in connection with the moneys used for consultation—presumably the legislation is not retrospective — and the reports had already been prepared by the Electricity Council and the CEGB, had the action been found to be illegal, it would still be illegal and not affected by the Bill. If so, why is this being done? One assumes that the provision will not apply, so why is it in the Bill? There was some discussion about that in Committee, but it is still not clear.
    Our new clause is designed to deal with the Bill as it stands. We want to take into account the sort of things that the Government have in mind. I note that the Minister, replying to queries raised by hon. Members in Committee, said:
    "the authorities would not have to fight lengthy and costly legal battles to defend their position. That would result in extra costs to people who are paying for their services." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 November 1987; c. 46.]
    It seems that the Minister felt that the costs were not justified and that if there were any fear of them arising he wanted to take the chance to prevent such extra costs being imposed on the consumer. At the end of the day the consumer must pay all the costs. There was a debate in

    901
    Committee as to whether there would be any limit on the costs. The Minister replied that, because he set the effective rate and the fiduciary duties of nationalised industries, that would control how much was spent on the reports. That is not an effective way of controlling expenditure. He did not answer when several hon. Members asked in Committee what limits would be on the expenditure.
    Even on a most generous assessment of the costs, they pale into insignificance when compared with what taxpayers will have to pay in commission to the City for handling the privatisation of the various industries. I think that about £500 million has been paid to bankers, accountants and solicitors for the 13 or 14 privatisations that we have had. It is peculiar that the Government are concerned about the chickenfeed of costs to be imposed on the consumer when the major cost of the sale of industries —hundreds of millions of pounds—has caused them no concern before. One can only assume that the amount involved in the privatisation of electricity, which will be greater than almost all the others put together, will be of considerable benefit to the City, where people have already been hired.
    I do not know who the people are who are involved in the consultancies. I have tried to find out from the various bodies, but they are extremely secretive about what has been done and how much money has been spent. I know from the limited amount of information that has been published that the Government, the CEGB and the Electricity Council have different bankers and different accountants who will presumably do very well from acting for the different parts of the industry. That is all that I can find out about the people who have already been hired.
    It would appear that the consultancy fees are limited very much to narrow financial obligations. I believe that the only concern of the Government in privatisation is how much money they can get from selling the silver. They are not concerned about the benefit to the consumer or whether the reorganisation that they wish to force on the electricity supply industry will be more efficient and safer for the consumer. Many people in the industry challenge the objects that the Government say they have in mind.
    We want to know from the Minister whether the consultancy fees and other moneys to be paid out are really for the financial sector of the industry — the accountants and bankers — or whether the money is being used to get an assessment of the consequences of breaking up the electricity supply industry. We know from the public debate that the proposal to separate the grid from the CEGB is controversial. The various parties have made strong statements about the consequences for the consumer and for the security of the industry.
    In the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State said:
    "Much preliminary work needs to be done both within the Government and the industry itself. This Bill will ensure that the industry can participate fully in that process."—[Official Report, 21 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 773.]
    Presumably the process is the privatisation of the industry. In the debate that has gone on since October there have been differing views about the consequences of certain actions that are proposed. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to tell the House tonight his thinking on the reports that he has got. We have to watch him on television or read what he has
    902
    said at a luxury hotel. I do not remember the name—I do not know the luxury hotels — but yesterday in a luxury hotel he lectured the mining industry on the consequences if it began to play politics with the industry. There is no one more politically motivated than the Secretary of State in his actions on the mining industry.
    We have to wait for the press, the television or a side remark to find out about fundamental policy. Why could the Secretary of State not take the opportunity to come to the House and give us some information about the reports that we are asking for so that we may assess for ourselves the consequences of privatisation? The Secretary of State referred on Second Reading to a public debate in which the industry could participate fully; presumably he did not have it in mind that Parliament would take part in that full debate, because he referred only to the industry.
    7.15 pm
    The only reference to Parliament being considered is in complaints about the privatisation of utilities. When the gas industry was privatised many criticisms of the Select Committee about the procedures adopted for privatisation, about the protection of the consumer and about concern that a public monopoly was being turned into a private monopoly have been borne out by events.
    The reason for the Bill is that the Government wish to move from a public monopoly to a private monopoly. Hence our fears about the attempt to break up the generation side and the distribution side, all in the name of competition. We wait to see the consequences.
    In their response to the Select Committee the Government promised that they would issue a White Paper before the privatisation of any other public utility. Yet in this Bill we have a clause which refers to the privatisation of the electricity industry. In Committee the Minister said:
    "The Government have a clear view of the merits of privatising the electricity industry". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 November 1987; c. 44.]
    What he meant was that he was not sure how they could do it. They did not know what the full effects would be. Presumably that was why they have to have reports. But they are not really interested in the consequences so long as they can get the money for the Treasury. That is all it is about. It is not about the rights of consumers. We have been told by the Minister and the Secretary of State about the exciting period for the consumers. They have exciting ideas about giving rebates if consumers do not get a proper service. We have yet to hear more about that.
    Parliament is not allowed to debate the issues. We have to glean the information from public statements. There is an opportunity in this debate for all the believers in the privatisation of electricity to put forward their views. Much of the money will be made by Government supporters, the people involved in the process. Where are they now? They are not here. They are not interested in whether it is good for the consumer. They have no report to tell them the nuclear industry is to be tacked on. They are not interested in that. All they are interested in is the value of the privatisation.
    The Secretary of State is very good at lecturing miners and everyone else but he cannot come here to tell Parliament how he stands. He cannot do the House the courtesy of coming to listen to the concerns of hon. Members, particularly after the announcement in Scotland today that because of his policies a British Coal contract will be cancelled, which will put thousands of miners out

    903
    of work and result in the closure of more mines in Scotland. That is just the forerunner of what will happen in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    I ask the Minister specifically what reports he has in mind. What moneys are to be used by the bodies concerned to prepare for privatisation? I would like to assume that the Minister is not solely concerned with the financial effects but may be concerned about the industry. Indeed, there is an obligation on the Department and on the industry to do something about that. But the Government are fast changing the terms of reference of the board, the chairman and the Electricity Council so as to kill off any critical opposition from those in the industry to their plans.
    Have the Government done an assessment to justify the reports that we hear about the split of the CEGB from the national grid? We hear from the people who run the industry that there will be blackouts. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but security of supply by the publicly owned electricity industry is important. We have been proud of the security of supply and it has been praised on both sides of the House. Indeed, recently during the gales electricity has still been supplied. In the home of privatisation, America, we see the fears of the people about a privatised service. It does not give them the security that we have with our publicly owned system. That is an issue on which there could be a debate, but when the Government decided to break up the CEGB and the grid—if that is their decision—how did they arrive at that view?
    Have the reports been done? If the reports have been done, why have they not been made available to the House so that we can debate them? Is the CEGB to be broken up into two sectors? The industry says that that would cost far more than it would save. We have heard what the Secretary of State says on television, but the industry is saying the opposite. Parliament should be entitled to express a view about those matters.
    I take the view from what we have heard in Committee —I had hoped we might hear differently today—that ideology is behind this. The Government say that they believe in the merits, but they just want to privatise for the sake of privatisation. They have not looked into this; it is a leap into the dark. They will risk this major industry, with a £12 billion turnover and £45 billion of assets; an important industry to the economy and to the industries that depend upon it. Plant manufacturers, the coal industry and the nuclear industry are all dependent on the policies to be pursued in those areas. It is crucial that the Government should make an assessment of what is going on.
    Reports and studies should be carried out, but I am worried as to whether the reports will be independent. If they are independent, will they be taken into account if they arrive at a different conclusion from the Government? The Government do not want to listen to impartial advice. They simply change the chairmen. They have changed the chairman of health bodies, and they would change the chairman of the CEGB when his time is up if he does not carry out what the Government want. The Government should tell us of the consequences for industry of privatisation in the very important areas to which the studies should address themselves.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us whether Parliament will be involved. He should tell us, instead of constantly teasing us, whether there will be a White Paper before the
    904
    industry is privatised which will assess the consequences and whether the study will be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will make a definitive statement on the suggestions in the press as to whether there is tobe a White Paper. He should answer the question put by the Select Committee on whether there will be a White Paper.
    I hope that the studies will take into account the problems associated with privatisation. We have read in the press of the decisions coming out bit by bit. Taking the nuclear industry as an example, will the Minister request a report on the consequences for the nuclear industry? We have heard from the Secretary of State that, while he believes in market forces, he is scared that if we privatise the electricity industry the nuclear industry may not order any more generating stations, so apparently a decision will be imposed on the privatised electricity industry that 20 per cent. of electricity must be produced by nuclear generation. That is what might be called an energy policy, although the Government constantly tell us that they do not believe in an energy policy; they believe in market forces. If they believe in market forces, why have they come to a judgment—perhaps the report led them along that path — that 20 per cent. of electricity must be produced by nuclear generation? We know the decommissioning cost of Magnox. Will that line be extended and will that bear the cost of privatisation? A legitimate inquiry should be made on how that will affect the price of electricity.
    Have the reports been done? We should be debating the major consequences of privatisation. The Secretary of State has made a statement, and presumably he has made up his mind. If he has made up his mind, why does he need money for reports? Apparently he has made up his mind on the importation of coal. We have heard tonight that the Scottish electricity generating board has taken the view, as the Government have given it higher profit targets and have told them to reduce costs, that the only effective way to reduce costs is to replace British coal with imported coal, so we see the planning agreements for greater imports of coal. Many studies have been done on how many mining jobs will be lost—we are told that it will be 1,700 in Scotland—and what will be the effect on the community and on the balance of payments if we replace domestically produced coal with imported coal. The loss of production of 30 million tonnes could add £1 billion to the balance of payments, which would have an effect on the real economy.
    Are the studies being done by the Government? If they are, why do they want the Bill to provide the money? Is it because the Secretary of State has already come to a judgment? The CEGB and the Scottish electricity board are already applying what the Secretary of State has told them to do, with major and disastrous consequences for the miners and pits, yet the Secretary of State has the audacity to tell us that the miners are playing politics, when he has fixed them in a political ring. They cannot win; there is no future for them. It does not matter how much he refers to pit closures and redundancies, because the Government have made up their mind to import coal and close down pits, to the worst fears of the miners, yet the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and tell us about confidence in the industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Spicer): This is the most appalling distortion, well below the normal standard of the hon. Member for

    905
    Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We have been absolutely clear about the coal industry — that a privatised electricity industry will be free to buy coal in the best markets. We have said that because we are confident that British coal can be competitive if it reforms. We have vast reserves of highly commercial coal and we intend to put money behind that coal so that it will be competitive with foreign coal. It is a total distortion to make any other case.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that we are dealing with reports to Parliament. Most Front Benchers are going far too wide.
    Mr. Prescott: I take the point that we are debating reports, and those reports will be presented to Parliament. I am trying to ascertain whether the reports have already been prepared, because the Bill says that the Government want to be assured that they have the authority and legal powers to commission such reports. I find it peculiar that the Government should have to wait for the Bill, as money has already been spent on various reports. It appears that the threat of legal action is there, irrespective of the Bill. I want to know what reports have already been done, because the Bill will give us power to ask the Secretary of State to report to Parliament. What should we do with the reports that have already been prepared?
    The Minister talked about market price. He should apply that to the nuclear industry. Why is he imposing a condition? Why is it strategically right to impose a condition on nuclear generated power if he is not prepared to put the argument for coal? It is vindictiveness against the coal industry. I do not want to open up that debate, but I presume that some reports were done by his Department. Can we have the reports so that we can make an honest judgment as to whether what the Secretary of State has been telling us is correct?
    The point we are making is critical: Parliament must be informed. The Government have nothing but contempt for Parliament, when they constantly use their votes to force things through. The Government have no desire to inform Parliament. A combined Committee unanimously called on the Government to produce a White Paper, and we would have felt that we had made some advances if the Minister had said that that report would be produced. We are worried that we do not have access to reports and we are worried about the continued nobbling by the Government of the chairmen of nationalised industries, either by replacing them or by not making available their reports.
    We do not have the means to judge the independence of reports. If the Secretary of State and Minister want evidence of that, they should look at the reply given to Parliament about the reappointment of Sir Philip Jones. The Government changed the terms of reference of a chairman who had been critical of the Government's proposals and told him to get into line if he wants the job and to carry out the Government's policy. They instructed him, for all to see — I will not quote it, but it was reported in Hansard last Friday. They have nobbled a chairman who disagreed with the Government.
    We have moved the new clause because Parliament must be given the chance to make a judgment about reports. I hope that the Minister will give us more substantial replies than he did in the Committee, when no
    906
    reports and no answers to questions were given. We must have a satisfactory reply to this. It is crucial to the rights of Parliament to check on the Executive in the privatisation of one of our fundamentally importart industries.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I am very keen that the reports that have been referred to should be presented to the House so that hon. Members can have an opportunity to decide where they want to go. The House will be aware that there have been expressions of concern that there may be a traumatic spin-off for the mining industry arising out of the privatisation of the electricity industry.
    We know that at present there is an understanding that the electricity industry will take 80 per cent. of the output of British Coal. We are all aware that if privatisation takes place, that understanding will no longer exist; we shall be open to the commercial market. There is speculation that preparations are under way for greater imports of coal into this country. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill, on the Order Paper today, certainly point that way. If this is not the case, what are they all about?
    I too am interested in the costs of and charges for consultancies, particularly looking at some of the consultants—the Electricity Council, Price Waterhouse, N.M. Rothschild and, when it comes to the CEGB, Lazards. We all know who is involved in that company. It is a man called Sir Ian MacGregor, whom the coal industry will never forget.
    I believe that it is absolutely essential that the House have these reports before there is any further privatisation. It is absolutely right that White Papers should be presented and that there should be discussions before the Government continue on their path of channelling profits to the private sector. I also believe that, if there is to be a massive rundown of the coal industry arising out of the privatisation of electricity, the Government should give serious consideration to the effects of that and not leave us in a similar situation to that in which we have been left previously, with whole communities wiped out and no new employment opportunities provided.
    The House has a right to know what the Government intend to do and how many men are going to be affected by the privatisation of electricity. Will it be another 40,000, as I can pretty well imagine? Indeed, as recently as last year, an eminent economist, Mr. J. McClusker, while giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy, forecast that the work force in the mining industry would be down to 64,000 by 1990. If the Government have any reports indicating this, the House has a right to know about them. If the young men in the mining industry, where the average age at present is 34, are going to find themselves thrown out of work because of the privatisation of the electricity industry, the House has a right to know.
    The House also has a right to know whether the Government have any reports, or intend making any reports, on the 20 per cent. nuclear power proportion, and if that will need subsidising. I put that question to the Minister because the indications are and my advice is that it could well be that the 20 per cent. will need subsidising. If that is the case, if we have suffered throughout the

    907
    mining industry because of the withdrawal of subsidy only for it to be transferred to the nuclear sector, the House has a right to know. These reports are absolutely essential.
    I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to say whether the Government are going to publicise these reports, if there are reports, and inform the House of the cost in terms of wiping out jobs in the mining industry. I believe that the Minister has an obligation, on behalf of the Government, to make these facts available before any major decisions on the subject are taken.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I rise to support the very modest new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), which I expect the Government to accept. All it does is require the Secretary of State to
    "report to Parliament all items of expenditure including consultancy fees, incurred by electricity boards or the Electricity Council in facilitating the transfer of their property or functions to another body corporate, arising from the privatisation of the electricity supply industry."
    The legislation that we are dealing with gives, under clause 1, massively wide powers. For example, under clause 1(3), the Minister will have the power to "do that thing with a view to promoting the interests of—
    (a) any body corporate to which it is proposed to transfer the property or functions."
    The Minister is provided with the power to promote the interests of any body corporate to which it is proposed to transfer the property or functions — not actually a transfer of property or functions, but simply a proposal to do so. This is a massive, sweeping power. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that we should ask that the Minister provide reports to Parliament about the application of the clause.
    After all, we would not want the Minister to be giving kickbacks to the friends of the Conservative party who are contributing to its campaign funds. Under clause 1, the Government could provide a consultancy for or ask for a report from all that legion of organisations which have been giving money to the Conservative party. That would be a corrupt use of taxpayers' money, but it would have the gloss of legality because the Minister has been given such wide powers.
    I expect that the Minister will deny any such activity, and the best way to embark on that denial is to accept the new clause in order to show that the Department of Energy is dealing at arm's length with all those organisations. He could also say that to demonstrate that arm's-length relationship the Government will promote various reports, consultations and so forth. One of the benefits of such reports would be to demonstrate that Government Members who are struggling along like the rest of us on their £24,000 a year are not benefiting from this privatisation measure through the various consultancies on which they are moonlighting and which are included in that very thick tome, the Register of Members' Interests.
    This covers a wide range. Price Waterhouse has been mentioned, for instance. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is a consultant to Price Waterhouse. This is a rich vein which one could mine for some time. I should have thought that, as the various bodies receive contracts from the Department, the Minister will be only too happy to provide the House with reports. There is in any event a question of general accountability.
    908
    The Minister cannot say that privatising electricity will lead to safeguards in management or standards. A few recent examples show that private ownership, with its pursuit of profit, sometimes disregards standards of safety. One has only to mention Townsend Thoresen for a shiver to run down people's spines. The private enterprise supervision of that organisation has not exactly become a byword for safety standards.
    In the Bill, however, we are dealing with the electricity industry, which has one of the most dangerous and potentially harmful methods of electricity generation known to mankind. We ought to have some regular reports to know what is going on and to stop the Minister uttering the slick platitude that he uttered a few moments ago—that the electricity generating industry would be allowed to buy coal from the best market. What precisely does that mean? If the Minister wants to say now that that is not what he means, and that he means that coal will be bought in future from British coal mines, let him say so. Let him not talk in platitudes about buying coal from the best market. That generally involves the concept of competition. We have to make a judgment about the best supply of coal in a competitive market place.
    It will be interesting to hear a statement from the Minister that, in carrying out the terms of clause 1, the Government will ensure that no coal is bought from South Africa, where black people are exploited. If he said that, it would at least reassure us. But if any of the bodies corporate to which it is proposed to transfer the property or functions of the electricity generating industry will develop a partnership in South Africa, should riot Parliament know about it? It would be in the interests of the community at large for Parliament to receive reports of such a development.
    I am sure that the Minister will join in with a conventional consensus about apartheid, as some Conservatives do who say that they are against apartheid. Let the Minister demonstrate that to the House by accepting the new clause so that he can report to Parliament. Should any of the nefarious organisations with which the Minister might become involved promote a body corporate to take over electricity generation, the Minister can report to the House. He knows that he will get our backing.
    7.45 pm
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said about fair competition, what of subsidies that other Common Market countries provide for their mining industries? Will that be dealt with fairly, or will the bodies corporate examine that sort of issue at the request of the Minister, if he is prepared to examine matters on that basis? Will he be prepared, for example, to say that we will not purchase coal from the mines of Colombia, where children are sent to work? We will be pleased to know about that, and he can include the information in the regular reports that the modest new clause asks him to make. The mining community will know then that this is not a vicious vendetta against them, to usurp their position by importing coal from any country where people are exploited to a greater degree.
    In our experience, private industry often cuts corners to make greater profit. We must know what is happening in an industry with such a dangerous form of electricity generation. Indeed, at the moment there is insufficient

    909
    information with regard to public facilities. The Central Electricity Generating Board frequently diffuses information that is economical with the truth.
    To remind the Minister, not long ago a Government employee called Sir Robert Armstrong, who was paid a fantastic salary because he was a man of such importance, was knighted for lying to a court in Australia. What an extraordinary set of values! If he had been a sweeper-up, lathe operator, turner or weaver in an ordinary firm and caught out for lying, he would have been sacked. But the Government, with their warped values, reward people who are economical with the truth. Therefore, to avoid misunderstanding or the possibility of a charge of duplicity, regular reports to the House could be scrutinised, and judged.
    Although we say that the standards of public utilities are not always of the best, the Minister should think of what happens in private utilities. They cut corners in safety standards to make bigger profits.
    Mr. Michael Jack rose—
    Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
    An overworked and under-staffed nuclear installations inspectorate cannot complete all the work that is required of it. There is a great danger in those circumstances that something could go wrong. In the United States of America, the incident at Three Mile Island occurred in a nuclear installation that was run by a private utility. That was the most dangerous accident before Chernobyl. Therefore, it behoves us to ask for regular reports to Parliament.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he agree with me that reports are made available regularly and openly by the nuclear installations inspectorate, as well as the Health and Safety Executive and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., with information on safety standards within the nuclear industry?
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those reports. Clearly he is in favour of requiring reports to be produced to Parliament. I am in favour of that too, and there is no difference between us on the issue. Under the new clause, we will be able to supplement such reports with information from the Secretary of State, because he is facilitating the transfer of a major public utility to private resources.
    We want details and technical information, but we also need to have general information about the powers in clause 1 relating to the promotion of bodies corporate. We want to be able to match one sort of information with another. For example, if there was a particularly bad contractor, we should like to know whether the new body corporate will deal with that contractor. We should be able to marry information from the two reports and make a better judgment.
    The Government, with their majority, can get a report through Parliament at the drop of a hat. The number of revolting Tories is very slender; even on a big issue, they get only a dozen revolters. That is all they can manage. The Government know that they can get a report through Parliament, but in a democracy the information should be made available.
    Mr. Frank Cook: In relation to the possibility that existing reports, such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), could be combined with the reports that we seek in the new clause, perhaps my hon. Friend will ponder the gross inadequacy of some reports published now. I will remind him of the type of instance that I mean. A question mark was put over the weld quality assurance records at Hinkley Point B, which were admitted by an individual almost a year ago. The CEGB and the nuclear installations inspectorate were supposed to investigate that and said that they would be open to public scrutiny. I am still waiting to get access to the plant; as are the engineers that I nominated. We are still waiting. The CEGB keeps us outside the gate and denies us the right that it said would be granted nearly 12 months ago.
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has pursued these matters with persistence and devotion to detail. It is one of the strengths of Parliament that it contains people such as my hon. Friend who are not prepared to take bland platitudes from bodies such as the CEGB.
    The standards of public ownership tend to be better than those of private ownership. Publicly owned bodies tend to be more accountable, but, having said that, I accept my hon. Friend's criticisms. The Minister is being given enormous powers to promote bodies that are private and that will not have any element of accountability unless the new clause is agreed. If the Minister has any pretensions to democracy, he should accept the clause.
    A lot of money—about £500 million—has flowed from the taxpayers' revenues to the Government's Tory friends in the City. If the Minister and the Government wish to divest themselves of the taint of lining the pockets of their friends—the wetter Conservative Members may indeed wish to divest themselves of that taint — they should accept the new clause. Of course, the Government may not regard that as a taint; they may regard it as a success story. Indeed, as some of that money has been recycled into the funds of the Conservative party, it is an even greater success story—although many of us would call that corrupt. However, as the Conservative party raises greed to a principle, they could argue that that principle is being carried into effect by their friends in the City who are being greedy and lining their pockets to a huge extent.
    The Government are always talking about how it is not the Government who make the money; it is the taxpayer who provides the money and the Government who spend it. Therefore, if the Government want fairness and some accountability for the taxpayers' revenue, they should, in all equity, accept this modest new clause so that the most important assembly in the United Kingdom, this Parliament—that sounds a bit grand, but by and large it is true — should be able to examine the reports and question the Minister in a way that would not be possible without the new clause.
    I shall be shocked if the Minister does not accept the new clause, because he will then stand adjudged of all my criticisms.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I wish briefly to support the call that the reports, which presumably are being worked on now and which will be published under clause 1, should be available in the House so that we can consider them. If nothing else, we should do so to ensure

    911
    that the reports are in the national interest and not in other interests. That applies especially to the question of what will happen to the supply of electricity once this pagan Bill is followed by other legislation and ends by breaking up the electricity supply industry as we have known it for a long time. There is also the question of the protection of consumers under a regime that will be different from the public regime that is the electricity supply industry now.
    However, as has been mentioned, the problems go wider than that. If the press reports are correct, it has been announced today that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is now to seek a market in which to buy its coal which will be much wider than the Scottish coalfield. That could be described as the beginning of the end for deep coal mining in Scotland. It should be remembered that that industry has served Britain for many centuries — certainly for decades—and has helped us to fight wars against the enemies without. However, if todays's press reports are true, the SSEB is to turn its back on the Scottish coal miners and effectively to close the industry. I am certain that in the national interest, any reports would take into account the cost to the nation of any rundown of the industry and the cost to its communities. It would be remiss of the House to pass the new clause without that being said.
    On the question of judging the independence of that national industry, it is important for us to ensure that all the reports are in the national interest and that they do not have any other interest. The question of party political interest in selling off public utilities has been raised. The electricity supply industry will be the biggest single privatisation in terms of the money that the Government will receive. That is important especially in the light of recent legislation which has stated that local authorities are not able to use public funds for party political propaganda. Therefore, it is important to make sure when selling off this great asset of our nation that none of the reports will be used for party political propaganda.
    I hope that any reports drawn up through the use of clause 1 — if the new clause is not accepted — will be available in the Library so that we can truly judge whether the national interest is being served.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked various questions, to some of which I can give him a clear and positive response. That applies especially to his first question in which he asked whether I would confirm that there were no powers in the Bill relevant or concerned specifically with the restructuring of the industry. I am happy to confirm that to him. This is not a Bill of substance so far as the electricity industry is concerned. Certainly, the Bill does not say anything about the nature of the restructuring of the industry.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to ask me why we need the Bill in connection with electricity. He made the point fairly that there have been previous privatisations and that the process of discussion about privatisation has already begun. In that context, the hon. Gentleman asked why the Bill was necessary and what it means in terms of the expenditure that has already been incurred. That is a perfectly fair point and the answer is that the Government have never believed that the Bill is necessary. What we have always said—I said this earlier in Committee—was that, in the context of the litigation which, when the Bill was introduced was live litigation, clearly, in some people's
    912
    minds, there was doubt about the vires of the expenditure. Rather than all parties being engaged in lengthy litigation which, in our view, would be fairly pointless and wasteful of resources, we should make it clear in legislation that a limited form of expenditure—it is only limited—relating to the advice given by the bodies that are to be privatised, used in assisting the Secretary of State to facilitate or to modify his proposals, should be protected by statute.
    I am not talking just about public sector parties and the effect of their expenditure on the consumer, although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, ultimately, that expenditure would fall on the consumer. That seems a perfectly reasonable position for the Government to have taken, although we have never had any doubt that the expenditure was perfectly acceptable and legal. Indeed, if the Government had had to fight the matter in the courts, that is the basis upon which we should have fought. However, we felt that it would be a waste of time and a waste of everybody's resources if we pursued the matter in the courts and that it would be better to clear it up through legislation.
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I presume that some consultancy fees have already been incurred, and as I presume also that the legislation will not be retrospective in such cases, is the Minister saying that the Bill gives the authority —although the Government believe that they already have that — to the next legislation for privatisation for the expenditure on the reports, consultations and consultancy fees that will be incurred while that privatisation Bill is going through the House during the next parliamentary Session?
    8 pm
    Mr. Spicer: I am not sure that I fully understand whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the past or the future. In the context of the Bill, I am speaking about the present electricity privatisation process. The Bill will give double assurance. We consider that there will be no problem regarding past or future expenditure, but for the sake of efficiency of use of resources we wish to be doubly clear about this matter, because there has been litigation. Rather than people spending their resources and time on wasteful litigation, we wish to make the issue doubly clear in the Bill.
    Mr. Prescott: I am sorry to press the Minister, but presumably some expenses have already been incurred which could not have been covered by present legislation. I was asking whether the real intention of the clause relates to expenditure to be undertaken in the next parliamentary Session, when we shall consider the privatisation Bill. Presumably that is all that it can cover.
    Mr. Spicer: It will apply both to the expenditure incurred when the Bill receives Royal Assent and to future expenditure. I have no idea what that expenditure will be. In the case of electricity, I assume that very little expenditure will have been incurred during the time to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    The hon. Gentleman asked, very fairly, what advice would be given under the terms of the Bill. Of course, the specific advice will depend on the proposals that the Government will make for privatisation. One thing is clear. We were asked whether we had a mandate to privatise. There is no question about our intention to

    913
    privatise the electricity industry and our confirmation of that intention is in our general election manifesto. I could list the areas on which advice will be given, such as technical, economic and organisational matters, but the important point is that the precise nature of the advice will depend on the structure that the Government propose.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked how that would relate to Parliament. That was the theme behind many of the speeches tonight. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made the same point. The role of Parliament clearly must be paramount. The structure of the industry that we are proposing under privatisation will be announced in the House. Whether that announcement is accompanied by a White Paper is still being considered by the Government.
    I believe that the most important issue is the nature, contents, specifics and detail of the statement that the Secretary of State for Energy will make to the House. The questioning process and, dependent upon what the House wishes to do, the debates that take place are also important. The probing of the Government's position during that debate or those debates will be critical in regard to how the Government produce their plans for the country. I assure the House that that will be done through Parliament.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister now telling the House that, despite all the press reports, there is a possibility that the Government will ignore the advice of the Select Committee and produce the White Paper before the privatisation of electricity? In response to a request from the Select Committee, the Government said that they would give consideration to its recommendations. Is that all that it is? Would consideration include the possibility that the Government may not produce one, anyway?
    Mr. Spicer: I am saying that the Government have not yet decided but they are certainly considering whether to produce a White Paper.
    The important question that was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was that our detailed plans for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry should be presented to Parliament, that Ministers should be probed and questioned and that the policy that we announce should be debated. Surely that is more critical than whether we produce a White Paper. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are discussing whether the statement should be accompanied by a White Paper. They have produced strong arguments, but the critical issue is how we present the facts and the proposals before the House. It may be for the convenience of the House that a detailed statement, questioning and debate should be accompanied by a White Paper. I am not in a position finally to tell the House that the Government have decided on that.
    The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked what studies the Government were making of this extremely complex matter. After six months or so of examining the subject, I am bound to concede that it is a complex issue on which there are passionate feelings and technically supported opinions from all sides. Therefore, it would be foolish, to say the least, of the Government not to have engaged in deep technical, economic and organisational analyses of the various options that they were considering. If that was the hon. Gentleman's
    914
    question, I can happily assure him that very substantive analysis has been made of all the implications of the various proposals that we now have in mind.
    I shall now address the specifics of new clause 4. New clause 4 places certain requirements on the Government regarding the fees and the reports and advice that the bodies would undertake on behalf of the Secretary of State. The central issue is whether all that information should continuously be put before Parliament. My answer is that Parliament is already deeply embroiled in that process.
    Under the terms of the Bill, Parliament restricts considerably the nature of the expenditure which can be undertaken. The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that the Bill was wide-ranging and sweeping. That was a fair rhetorical point, but it is not how the Bill is drafted. Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) are highly restrictive in regard to expenditure. Clause 1(1)(a) states that only advice which is
    "facilitating the implementation of the proposal for the transfer"
    can be accommodated within the terms of the Bill.
    In regard to whether those moneys are likely to be properly spent, the Secretary of State has the responsibility to appoint auditors to ensure that the money is properly spent. He also appoints the members of the boards, who have their own financial responsibilities for the way in which money is spent.
    Fundamentally, Parliament has devolved management responsibility on those nationalised industries. Parliament has said that within certain broad parameters and responsibilities which lie on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, those nationalised industries, within the financial targets set by the Secretary of State and debated in Parliament and within various constraints, must get on with the business of managing themselves and their operations in a way that complies with their broad objectives. It must be said that that kind of highly detailed expenditure, which, as I have already argued, is very limited, must be the responsibility of the bodies concerned. Parliament would want to engage itself with that expenditure on a daily basis, as is implicit under the terms of the new clause.
    That is the substance of my case for voting against the new clause.
    Mr. Prescott: So the Government are going to inform us?
    Mr. Spicer: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not agree with me, let alone be informed by me, however long I spoke. Therefore, it might be for the convenience of the House, having made those specific points against the new clause, if I advised that the new clause be withdrawn or that hon. Members vote against it.
    Mr. John Garrett: I had hoped that this brief debate about expenditure to facilitate privatisation would give us the opportunity to establish the Department's thinking about the Government's largest proposed privatisation. I had hoped that we would learn what studies might be undertaken before privatisation so as better to inform the House.
    I found the Minister's reply somewhat less than satisfactory given the major issues raised by my hon. Friends on matters of great consequence about the ultimate effect of privatisation. The Minister said that the

    915
    Department would seek advice from the bodies referred to in the new clause. He said that he was unwilling to list the necessary advice which might be technical or economic and, I assume, social or even political.
    We had expected a White Paper to precede the publication of the Bill. The Minister referred to a statement. What does a statement mean? It amounts to 10 minutes after Question Time for Back Benchers to address questions to a Minister. How is that public accountability? Surely that bears out the authoritarian style that we are so accustomed to in the way in which the Government conduct their affairs.
    I believe that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry should he preceded by several studies which should be reported to the House. I want to add one or two to those mentioned by my hon. Friends.
    On 6 November the Secretary of State admitted that Britain's electricity costs were among the lowest in Europe and lower than those of the United States, Japan and Germany where privatised or semi-privatised electricity supply is dominant. The efficiency of our electricity supply industry derives from the planning control possible under an integrated system, including the security and ability to use the cheapest source of power on any given day. An early study by the Department of Energy might concern the potential benefit of privatisation to the consumer and the cost penalties of the separation of generation and transmission—or have we already seen one effect of the impending privatisation in the 15 per cent. increase in electricity tariffs over the next 18 months? Is that what the Secretary of State meant by talking about making it possible for competitors to enter the business?
    We can learn one major social and economic consequence from gas privatisation. According to the Gas Consumers Council, there has been a 35 per cent. increase in disconnections over the past year. How did that contribute to efficiency? What protection for the poor will there be in electricity privatisation? What will happen to the 2·5 million householders who now receive help with their heating costs, particularly when the social security regulations to be introduced in April will make such help unlikely in future?
    A major study is required, with a report to the House, on the effect of the proposals on fuel poverty. Is the Minister aware of the effects, or will he commission a study to find out? The Secretary of State often refers to the consumer interest. How will that be safeguarded? What will happen to consultative councils? What forms of representation will be available against the activities and performance of private boards and generators? The experience of British Telecom and British Gas is that consumer consultation has been substantially weakened. What is proposed for the Electricity Consumers Council? What machinery will exist for public and consumer accountability? We must assume that security of supply and safety will transcend private profit in these matters.
    The greatest mystery of all surrounds nuclear power. I should have thought that a substantial report would be due to Parliament on what the Department has in mind about nuclear power. How does the Secretary of State propose to reconcile the least cost argument with the desire to preserve a nuclear power capacity? How will the cost of decommissioning nuclear power enter the equation?
    916
    8.15 pm
    The second report of the Select Committee on Energy in 1986–87 includes a memorandum from the Central Electricity Generating Board which states that the total cost of decommissioning a major Magnox station would be £180 million to £330 million with stage 2 taking 15 years. The lower figure assumes that the final stage would be deferred for 100 years. It stated that improved technology over the 100 years would lead to cost reductions in decommissioning. Surely it is more likely that more stringent safety codes will be introduced over that period which would increase decommissioning costs. Safety is not getting cheaper and that might be the subject of a major report to the House.
    Are the Government proposing to exempt nuclear power from privatisation or to discount the cost of decommissioning when striking a price for nuclear generation? Will private generators have to take on nuclear generation or commit themselves to building new nuclear power capacity?
    On 29 January David Fairhall explained in The Guardian:
    "The British nuclear establishment … contrasted its own integrated approach with a US system under which the electricity utilities are largely left to run their own nuclear programmes so long as they obey the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rules.
    The danger of the US arrangement, as the Americans themselves have conceded, is that the safe operation of a nuclear power station is far too complicated to be susceptible to a set of written rules …
    Britain's nuclear power industry was created for strategic reasons, not short-term commercial ones. It depends on a vast infrastructure of research …and technological expertise …
    No commercial outfit is going to touch it, in other words, without all-risks cover from government and taxpayer."
    Perhaps we can have a report to the House on that novel form of insurance.
    When formulating the guidelines for a new regulatory body, how would fuel costs be treated if they could be passed on to the consumer? How would that encourage efficiency? In assessing allowable costs other than fuel, how would the prudence of investment costs — for example, in safety—be established?
    If a private generator has to be offered a rate of return over the life of a power station of 30 years or so, how will it be possible to run a national merit order to use the cheapest first? If the rate of return to a private generator is guaranteed, surely that must increase prices.
    There is a national interest in R and D, shared by the House, in this area. It is important that a study is carried out into R and D. Profit maximisation will mean that investment and innovation decisions are made on a short time scale. That will lead to a greater buying in of research and development, including from overseas, with a corresponding rundown in United Kingdom expertise. That is likely to mean that either Britain will lose its position at the leading edge of the relevant technologies or that it will become increasingly and dangerously reliant on overseas expertise—or both.
    There is major R and D in the electricity industry, including combined cycle pressurised fluid bed combustion, new technologies for emission control and super conductivity in transmission systems. It is most unlikely that private enterprise will invest in those matters to the detriment of our science and of providing cheap and safe electricity.

    917
    I had hoped that the Minister would offer to instigate studies on those matters and report the results to the House. I suspect that Ministers are not interested in the results. Our major misgivings are not satisfied by the Minister's explanation. We are extremely unhappy about the Government's failure to give a guarantee of a White Paper. A statement is not good enough. The new clause is about public accountability and about telling the truth.
    Mr. Cryer: It is also very modest.
    Mr. Garrett: As my hon. Friend says, it is very modest. I should have thought that the Minister could concede it easily. This is a matter of public and parliamentary accountability. We are dissatisfied with the Minister's reply and we shall divide the House on the clause.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 252.

    Division No. 162]

    [8.20 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Doran, Frank

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Douglas, Dick

    Allen, Graham

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Anderson, Donald

    Dunnachie, James

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Eadie, Alexander

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Ashton, Joe

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Barron, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Flannery, Martin

    Bell, Stuart

    Flynn, Paul

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Derek

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Foulkes, George

    Blair, Tony

    Fraser, John

    Blunkett, David

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Boateng, Paul

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Boyes, Roland

    Galloway, George

    Bradley, Keith

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    George, Bruce

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Buckley, George

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Caborn, Richard

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Callaghan, Jim

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Clay, Bob

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Douglas

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Donald

    Holland, Stuart

    Corbett, Robin

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, James

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crowther, Stan

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Cryer, Bob

    Howells, Geraint

    Cummings, J.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Darling, Alastair

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dewar, Donald

    Illsley, Eric

    Dixon, Don

    Ingram, Adam

    918

    Janner, Greville

    Pike, Peter

    John, Brynmor

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kilfedder, James

    Radice, Giles

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Randall, Stuart

    Lambie, David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lamond, James

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Leighton, Ron

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terry

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Litherland, Robert

    Rowlands, Ted

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Livsey, Richard

    Salmond, Alex

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAllion, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAvoy, Tom

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McCartney, Ian

    Short, Clare

    Macdonald, Calum

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

    McLeish, Henry

    Snape, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    McTaggart, Bob

    Spearing, Nigel

    McWilliam, John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Madden, Max

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stott, Roger

    Marek, Dr John

    Strang, Gavin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Straw, Jack

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Maxton, John

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Meacher, Michael

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Meale, Alan

    Turner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Wall, Pat

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morley, Elliott

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Wilson, Brian

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Winnick, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Murphy, Paul

    Worthington, Anthony

    O'Brien, William

    Wray, James

    O'Neill, Martin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    Pendry, Tom

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Allason, Rupert

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Amess, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Ashby, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bottomley, Peter

    Atkins, Robert

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Atkinson, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bowis, John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Baldry, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bright, Graham

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Benyon, W.

    Burns, Simon

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Burt, Alistair

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Butcher, John

    919

    Butler, Chris

    Holt, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Howard, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cash, William

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irving, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cope, John

    Jackson, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Janman, Timothy

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cran, James

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Curry, David

    Key, Robert

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Day, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Devlin, Tim

    Knowles, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Lang, Ian

    Dicks, Terry

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dover, Den

    Lightbown, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Eggar, Tim

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Mans, Keith

    Evennett, David

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fallon, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Favell, Tony

    Moate, Roger

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Needham, Richard

    Forman, Nigel

    Neubert, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Franks, Cecil

    Page, Richard

    Freeman, Roger

    Paice, James

    French, Douglas

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gale, Roger

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Gill, Christopher

    Pawsey, James

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Gow, Ian

    Price, Sir David

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Raffan, Keith

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Redwood, John

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Grist, Ian

    Riddick, Graham

    Ground, Patrick

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Grylls, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Rost, Peter

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Ryder, Richard

    Hannam, John

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Scott, Nicholas

    Harris, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hayes, Jerry

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Hayward, Robert

    Shersby, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Heddle, John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hill, James

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Hind, Kenneth

    Speed, Keith

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Speller, Tony

    920

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Squire, Robin

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Steen, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Stern, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Waller, Gary

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Ward, John

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Stokes, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Watts, John

    Sumberg, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wheeler, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Whitney, Ray

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Woodcock, Mike

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Yeo, Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Tredinnick, David

    Trippier, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mr. Alan Howarth and

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mr. David Maclean.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 4

    METERING TRIALS SCHEMES
    8.30 pm
    Ms. Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
    '(c) to whether the charging structure adopted for the purpose of the trial takes into account the imposition of value added tax on water according to EEC practice.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
    '(c) to whether the charging structure adopted for the purpose of the trial meets the following criteria—

    (i) the charging structure must be easily understood by the consumer,

    (ii) the charging structure must be practical and able to be carried out with the available technology,

    (iii) the charging structure must be capable of wider application and use.'.

    Ms. Quin: The amendments relate to the structure and type of charges to which the consumer will be subject during the trial periods. We believe that the issue of the charging structure to be used is important because we have consistently argued that consumers should know what they are paying for when they receive their water bill. That knowledge is particularly important during the trial periods because consumers in those areas, once they have asked the question, "Why us? Why were we chosen for the trial?", will go on to ask, "What will it cost us?". They have a right to know that and they have a right to have a detailed breakdown of the costs.
    Paragraph (c)(i) of amendment No. 2 refers to the fact that we feel that:
    "the charging structure must be easily understood by the consumer"
    We believe that the consumer should know what part of the bill represents fixed costs, what part represents the new measures taken to improve the quality of water and what part represents the charges relating to the volume of

    921
    water consumed. Earlier on in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) made the important point that a large part of gas and electricity bills relates to the volume of supply consumed—she mentioned the figure of 80 per cent. However, for the water industry an entirely different situation obtains. The figures that I have seen suggest that only 20 per cent. of the bill relates to the volume of water consumed. It is right that the customer in the trial areas should have the necessary information relating to the bill. It has been widely reported that metering will lead to an increase in costs. Therefore, the consumers in the trial areas have a right to know how much of the extra cost on their bill specifically relates to metering.
    Amendment No. 1 relates to the question of VAT on water charges. It is not clear whether VAT will be charged on the domestic consumer of water in the future. We certainly hope not and we would be delighted if the Government gave us a clear commitment on that tonight. We hope that the Government will resist any pressure to impose VAT. I understand that the court case that is still to be completed at the European Court of Justice relates to VAT being charged on industrial consumers only. However, I understand that the European Commission's proposals concerning harmonisation of VAT rates in the long term include water charges in their plans for the lower band of VAT. We are concerned about that and we believe that the consumer in the trial areas has a right to be told what is happening about VAT. Perhaps the Government will give us the assurance that we require and tell us that there will be no VAT charged on domestic users of water during the period of the trials and, we hope, thereafter. We wait to hear from the Minister in that regard.
    Subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of amendment No. 2 are common sense amendments. Subparagraph (ii) states that the charging structure should be practical and should be carried out "with the available technology". Subparagraph (iii) states that the:
    "charging structure must be capable of wider application and use".
    The purpose of subparagraph (ii) and (iii) is to prevent a person in the trial areas being any more of a guinea pig than he or she already is under the system. Certainly we do not want those people to be given an unworkable system or a system that will not be used again.
    We believe that the amendments are practical and common sense. By tabling them we believe that we are providing the Government with some practical advice that will help them conduct the trials in an easier and, perhaps, more acceptable way than would otherwise have been the case. That hope is despite our belief that the trials should not go ahead. However, the amendments are constructive and we have proposed changes that we believe will give extra protection to the households and consumers involved.
    One of my hon. Friends has referred to the fact that all of our amendments amount to a consumer protection charter during the metering trials. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will accept the amendments in the spirit intended because we believe that they represent a constructive way forward.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is not our intention to delay the House on the amendments. Suffice it to say that the real issue is
    922
    the charges to the consumers. Indeed, amendment No. 2 makes it clear that the charging structure that is adopted for the trial should follow certain criteria.
    In the Yorkshire area we are advised that the rising block tariff will be the charging structure applied. Reference has already been made to the old lady living alone who pays the same water charges as the family next door and that is unjust. Unless the base of the charging structure takes that into account I believe that there will be disadvantages and the widow or the single person will suffer an unfairness. If the rising block tariff is not based on the single person or the old lady, but is based on a family of three or four, that old lady will lose out. The amount of water that she will pay for, at the base of the tariff, will be the same as a family of four. There will be great difficulties for single people living in large properties.
    There is also the problem of standing charges. People in my area pay two standing charges to the water authority — one for water and one for sewerage. Unless information is given in the explanatory notes to consumers as to what charges will be, I can foresee immense problems for low-income families in my area.
    These amendments are important. The charging structure must be practical so that the authorities can implement it. There must be no preference whatsoever in the agreed structure. Some sections of the community will benefit from the introduction of meters, but others will be disadvantaged. I hope that no undue preference will be shown in the pricing structure to certain groups of people.
    I ask the Minister to give assurances that people on low incomes will not lose out during metering trials. If there is to be universal metering during those trials, greater problems will arise that will have to be analysed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) raised some important issues in moving these amendments and I hope that the Minister will answer the questions that have been posed.
    Mr. Moynihan: Although these amendments are unnecessary, for reasons that I shall mention in a moment, they cover some important issues. I am glad that Labour Members have raised them.
    The reasons why the Government regard the amendments as unnecessary and, indeed, restrictive are as follows. Clause 4 sets out a special regime for metering trials schemes. Each water authority or company wishing to carry out a trial must submit proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his consideration and approval. In so doing, my right hon. Friend will be required, by clause 4(3), to have regard to the interests of those customers who are likely to be affected and to various other matters, including the methods and principles by which charges will be calculated and imposed. That is covered by clause 4(4). That will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ample scope to consider the structure of the charges proposed for each trial, including the rationale between the choice of a particular tariff structure and, most important, the implications for customers.
    In addition, as a result of clause 4(5), in considering a scheme for approval he may also take into account whether the proposed charges are intended, within the constraints of the experimental nature of the trial, to be cost related and whether a charging system would result in undue discrimination against or undue preference for any class of customers. That point is critical, and it was

    923
    raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). With regard to the trial in his area, I take this opportunity to underline the fact that any charging system must not result in undue discrimination or undue preference. It will be critical to the Secretary of State's consideration of any proposed trial scheme that that criterion is adhered to.
    Those latter requirements are, as hon. Members will have recognised, the cornerstone of the existing customer protection provisions in section 30 of the Water Act 1973, which are re-enacted in clause 3 of the Bill. Thus, the Bill as it stands would enable my right hon. Friend to consider all the matters in these amendments and many more aspects of proposed charging procedures.
    With regard to the various detailed issues raised by these amendments, I should like to assure the House that it is quite true that the industry has tentatively drawn up a list of different types of tariff to be tested in this proposed joint programme—one large scale and 10 small scale trials. However, I emphasise that the final decision on the type and level of each tariff will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In considering each proposal, my right hon. Friend will take into account the need for a balanced programme of trials on a nationwide basis.
    I should emphasise the importance that the Water Authorities Association has placed on ensuring that we consider a range of tariff structures. In putting forward a range of proposals to my right hon. Friend, it will have taken into consideration the nature of metering trials and the opportunity to try out a variety of charging structures and tariff bases. It will be incumbent on all water undertakers to make available full details of the proposed tariff structure to everyone in each of the metering trial areas before my right hon Friend the Secretary of State has before him the proposed trial areas for approval. It will be opportune at that stage for individual consumers or groups in a proposed trial area to make representations to the Secretary of State for him to take into account.
    8.45 pm
    Those points are critical, because they are part and parcel of the importance that we attach to consumer interests. It is one of our priorities to ensure that we carry with us those who live within the proposed trial areas. They are important criteria and are of particular concern to customers, and I can assure the House that they will be taken into account when my right hon. Friend considers each scheme.
    The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) raised the important issue of VAT. Although the European Commission has been taking proceedings against the United Kingdom for having a zero VAT rating for the supply of various goods and services, including water and sewerage services to industry, the case does not concern domestic supplies. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the ruling of the European Court when it is delivered. In the meantime, it is premature to speculate about what the outcome might be. However, I should re-emphasise that the Commission's action does not apply to domestic water supplies.
    I repeat that these amendments are unnecessary and I urge hon. Members, following my explanation to the House, not to press them.
    Ms. Quin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
    'In considering the matters in paragraph (a) above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to implications for charitable institutions and voluntary sporting organisations.'.
    I wish to say immediately that this is a probing amendment. We wish to show our flexibility, and we hope that the Minister will show some as well. I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of Conservative Members that we are prepared to amend clause 4. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will be flexible.
    I hope that the Minister will not try to improve on his record of interventions. I do not know who Miss Allen is, but when she totted up his interventions, I am sure that she did not take their quality into account. The Minister often had to get up three or four times to make a simple point.
    We are conscious that the Minister wears a number of hats. I got into trouble in Committee when I said that he was in charge of aqua affairs and that I did not know how many other affairs he was in charge of. I did not make the point as clearly as I shall now — the Minister is responsible not only for sport but for the water industry, for environmental protection, for the Countryside Commission and a number of other areas of Government any one of which totals 9·10 per cent. of Ins responsibilities. We are lucky that we are receiving 18·20 per cent. of his responsibilities. I am sure that we shall have a much weightier contribution from him tonight that we have had to date.
    The Minister prides himself on getting on well with the sporting fraternity. Alas, that is wearing a bit thin with water sporting groups. Unless he is more forthcoming, he can say goodbye to the good will that he has built up to date with the many charitable and voluntary sporting groups in this country, who so far have been impressed with his energy. I know from representations that I have received that many of' them feel that with this legislation that good will is disappearing fast. Many of the existing agreements that recreational and sporting groups have with the water authorities are clearly under threat and those groups look to the Minister to protect them. If the amendment is not carried, they will increase their opposition.
    There are many obvious examples. As the Minister perhaps knows—it was referred to in Committee — the National Anglers Council has voiced its worries about the Bill. As the Minister also knows, there are 3·4 million anglers in this country, 1·2 million of whom have fishing licences. The specific price agreements of individual angling clubs are at risk. The Minister should accept the amendment and give clear guarantees to put the anglers and others out of their misery. In my constituency, there is a disabled persons' angling club in the Longendale valley which will be badly hit if prices are forced up. That club is not alone. Many groups in the areas chosen for the meter trials will suffer in the same way.
    I said in Committee and reiterate now that, unless the Minister is clear and unequivocal on the issues worrying the clubs, many groups in the trial areas will suffer loss of amenity by having their running costs forced up, particularly when the main legislation is passed later. Characteristically, the Minister has underestimated the number of regular users of the water environment each year. He puts the figure at about 2 million, when the real figure is closer to 5 million.

    925
    It is not only those groups that worry us; the amendment addresses itself to a wider range of interested groups. The Minister has become relatively famous as a water sportsman. I discount his boxing prowess, because I have sparred with him and his reflexes are far too slow for him to have been any good at that sport. Is it not ironic that the water sportsmen are turning against him because when that substance is metered it will bring many of them close to extinction?
    Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pendry: I am trying to hurry along. The hon. Gentleman has not taken much interest in this Bill; although he is not alone, so I do not wish to single him out from the rest of the breed.
    As we said in Committee, water sports enthusiasts are not alone in feeling apprehensive about the consequences of the Bill. In trial areas, many other sports clubs will find that their premises and services will be hit by the Bill. That applies to football, cricket, tennis and golf clubs—to say nothing of bowling clubs where many of our elderly citizens pass their recreational time. There are many more. Is the Minister really prepared to throw away all the good will that he has generated with the sporting fraternity and impose metering charges on those groups?
    I have received letters from groundsmen of football clubs who are worried about the implications of the Bill. They are worried about the price of sprinkling and of watering their pitches. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) is a great Port Vale supporter. Unfortunately, I heard someone say that, without a wet pitch, that club would not have beaten Spurs on Saturday.
    Ms. Walley: I must put it on record that the abilities of Port Vale football club are second to none. With or without the conditions on the pitch, I have no doubt that they would have been the giant-killers and beaten Tottenham Hotspur on Saturday.
    Mr. Pendry: I would have said exactly the same to the person who made that accusation.
    On an equally light note, because cricket clubs have been affected I am tempted to think that the Minister is perhaps standing up for the dying breed of the English spin bowler. If cricket clubs are to economise with water, more and more dry and dusty pitches will play havoc with the batsman's technique. At the risk of destroying good wickets, it is no good the Minister saying on the one hand that he is prepared to put out the begging bowl to save the Oval while on the other putting the squeeze on a number of small cricket clubs which may go out of business altogether. Exorbitant water metering charges will add to the already crippling costs faced by sports clubs.
    Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the effects of water metering on sporting clubs. As he knows, my constituency is the largest of the test areas to be metered. How does he explain the fact that I have not had one representation from any sporting user of water? I have received many from households but not one from a sporting user.
    Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He should have been making lots of loud
    926
    noises in support of the Government. If his constituents find it as difficult to find him as we have, I am not surprised that he has received nothing.
    The Minister knows that I have a high regard for him. He has done much work for sport, but he has so many hats to wear that he cannot possibly come to grips with his portfolio as he might like to. He must stand up to his boss, the Secretary of State—who was here for five minutes to support him but has just left again—and to his bigger boss, the Prime Minister. Both are known to be sporting philistines. If he does not stand up to them, he will find himself alienated and distanced from his erstwhile supporters. The other day, I asked him to stand tall for sport. I am asking him to stand tall again. In the friendliest possible way, I would say to him that he must place on record tonight his determination to protect the best interests of charitable and sporting organisations from this squalid Bill, and he must say so loud and clear.
    Mr. Moynihan: I know that life in their Lordships' House has been unexpectedly diverse and, on occasions, colourful this evening, but the contribution of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) stretched even my imagination to incredulity. The only way that the Bill can affect anglers is if they use a lot of water in their club houses. I do not think that anyone has the intention of even considering the possibility of metering water as it goes past them in the river.
    Mr. Pendry: The Minister was not listening. I was talking about a club in my constituency and other angling clubs. We are talking about clubs.
    Mr. Moynihan: I do not quite see how an angling club in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be affected by the Bill, as there is no proposed metering trial scheme there. It defies the imagination to raise the issue of sporting clubs. As the hon. Gentleman, as a keen follower of sport, well knows, a large number of sporting clubs, particularly those with large acreages, are already metered. Like industry, they see the benefits and are already metered. One reason why my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has not received any letters on the subject is that many of the clubs are already metered and see the benefits of it.
    Some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde would be better directed at the substantive legislation. I am aware that fishing, sporting and recreational interests must be well protected and enhanced, as they will be when the National Rivers Authority is established, but that has nothing to do with this Bill.
    Clause 4(3) requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when considering proposals, to have regard to the interests of those customers charged by trial schemes and to various other matters. This amendment requires my right hon. Friend, when considering a scheme, to have particular regard to implications for charitable institutions and voluntary sporting organisations. These are, of course, very important groups, and no one takes a keener interest in their activities than I. That is why I hope that hon. Members will accept my advice that the requirement is unnecessary. I explained when we discussed amendments Nos. 1 and 2 that, as part of the special charges scheme regime for the trials, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to have regard to the interest of customers made subject to charges by each scheme, and

    927
    that, in doing so, he may take into account whether the trial would result in undue discrimination or undue preference to any classes of customer. These requirements should ensure that all classes of consumers, including voluntary sporting organisations and charitable institutions, are treated fairly.
    I therefore urge that the amendment should be withdrawn. Nobody could he more committed to protecting and promoting the interests of sport and recreation than myself. I give a clear undertaking that they will not be affected by the provisions in the Bill.
    9 pm
    Mr. Boyes: The Minister's reply was disappointing and well below his usual standard of excellence. On this occasion, it is a 3 out of 10 job.
    The Minister said that he would ensure that charitable bodies were treated fairly, but what does that mean? Many people are dependent on charitable bodies, especially when Government cuts occur. Many people live in poverty and are abused in different ways. The proliferation of physical and sexual abuse of children is of great concern to us all. Regrettably, more and more people are having to rely on charities for assistance and guidance. When the Minister said that he hoped to treat charities fairly, did he mean that he would do something special for charities? Surely, when their bills increase substantially as a result of water metering, they will be treated extremely unfairly. I had hoped that the Minister would recognise that point.
    The Minister did not mention that fishing is an important aspect of leisure, whether one watches, plays or referees, especially in constituencies such as mine where there is massive unemployment. I had hoped that the Minister would make some helpful comments so that recreational clubs would not be disadvantaged by water metering.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) argued the case well, but the Minister has not given us a glimmer of hope. Charitable bodies will be treated like everybody else: if, as a consequence of metering, they find themselves in reduced financial circumstances, or have to go out of existence, so be it. That is a callous approach from a Minister whom we know to be caring, but who has not shown his concern on this occasion.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 5

    PROVISIONS RELATING TO METERS ETC.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 7, at end insert—
    '(dd) require water undertakers to inspect, examine and test meters, free of charge, every twelve months if the customer so desires.'.
    The amendment derives from a number of votes in Committee and, I am sad to say, from the fact that no changes have resulted from several promises that the Minister made to consider the matter.
    Let us consider the essential points for and against the free testing of meters for those involved in the trial schemes, although I should like all those who are metered to have the same opportunities.
    One argument against the free testing of meters is that those at present with meters can call for a test to be
    928
    performed which must be paid for if it shows that there is nothing wrong with the meter. That may be reasonable where people who presently have meters have opted for them, because they see a financial gain in doing so. Therefore, it is argued, if they have a complaint about the meters they can bear the cost of having them checked. However, even that is a fairly mean attitude for a public service.
    If one looks at compulsory metering, particularly in the trial schemes where different meters are being tested and where there are doubts about the effect of the system on different people, about the accuracy of the meters being used and about how well they will work in practice, it is astonishing that the Government should try to limit people's ability to ask for meter tests by forcing a charge where no fault is found.
    That will clearly penalise the poorest in society. Those who are most likely to be affected by a false meter, possibly leading to higher charges than they should be paying, will be most directly hurt, because, when they consider whether to have the meter inspected, they will have to bear in mind that if the meter is accurate they will be penalised for having asked for it to be checked.
    It is a basic element of fairness that people should have the opportunity to have their meters checked. I had hoped that the Minister would follow through his earlier agreement that that is a strong point, and come up with the goods in practice.
    We are discussing a state industry, and there is greater protection under a public corporation than a private industry. I hope that that will be particularly borne in mind as the industry is privatised. The right of the consumer to opt for an independent meter test should be protected. It should be possible to have meters checked, in the safe knowledge that there will be no financial penalty.
    The Minister made it clear that he does not want somebody phoning up every day asking for yet another test, and I accept that. He correctly said that that could result in a few maverick individuals causing high costs for the great majority of consumers. The amendment takes that into account by limiting the right to free testing to once every 12 months. It has been suggested that that should be limited to one, full stop, but that would be lunatic because things can change over time. The fact that a meter has been tested and proved to be accurate one year does not mean that it will not go wrong the following, year. However, I have taken on board the point that the Minister made in Committee, that there needs to be some limit, and that is contained in the amendment.
    If the Minister feels that the amendment is still too open, I refer him to the suggestion made in Committee that testing could be through reference by Members of Parliament, as, for example, when matters are referred to the ombudsman. If he is prepared to make that commitment, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment and await a subsequent Government amendment.
    It is clear that the Minister saw the strength of this point. In written answers, he made a commitment to contact water authorities to see whether something could be done about it. In the Committee's proceedings on 15 December, the Minister said:
    "We shall discuss regulations, but I place on record that I will consider making provision in regulations by discussing with water undertakers the possibility of establishing a system that will go part way to satisfying the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

    929
    My greatest worry about going the whole way is that, as the hon. Member for Truro said, some people who did not want meters installed in particular properties will go too far and abuse the system by telephoning each day to demand that meters should be tested." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 December 1987; c. 532.]
    Later, in reply to another Opposition hon. Member, the Minister said:
    "Following an intervention by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) in Committee on 15 December, I have already given an undertaking to consider the possibility of customers taking part in the trials being offered, free of charge, at least one test of the accuracy of their meters … I hope that Opposition Members will accept that we are not closed in our thinking about a free test, particularly for elderly folk who find new equipment being brought into their houses and are uncertain about reading a water-metering device. In such cases, we must be careful not to charge—certainly on the first occasion—anyone who shows that anxiety.
    We are to hold discussions with the water undertakers to satisfy the points made by Opposition Members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 January 1988; c. 652.]
    We are now on Report, and nothing material has been forthcoming. I regret having had to table the amendment. I have made sure that it is couched in terms similar to those that the Minister said he would bring forward. He has not done so, and I ask him now to accept the amendment on the ground that it is in line with what he wanted. It does not go as far as many Opposition Members might want, but it is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's support for it.
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that my contribution will be brief. As an engineer, I should have thought that the measurement of the flow of a liquid —water, oil or whatever—is probably the simplest and most accurate of techniques.
    Why is the legislation being brought forward? It is here because of public opinion. We have heard about fair play from Opposition Members; we heard the story about the old lady living on her own and about people up the road living three or four to a house and using much more water than her—and how unfair that was. That is, perhaps, a sensible argument, but it is strange to hear it coming from the Opposition who have opposed that sort of argument in the context of the community charge when we have spoken of the old lady living on her own who wants a fair system. However, I must not digress.
    Pilot schemes will include everything. If a domestic user's bill after the pilot scheme happened to be abnormal, I am certain that officials would visit his home and go through the sort of quantities of water that he was using for the bath, watering and sprinkling the garden, the toilet systems and so on, and decide whether there had been some malfunction of the meter. That would happen in the unlikely event of a failure, and it is what a pilot scheme is all about. The Government are responding to public opinion by bringing forward this sensible measure, and it would be a shame to complicate it with this sort of amendment when the pilot scheme takes care of the point raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) about a malfunction of the meter. Any malfunctioning will show up from house to house during a pilot scheme; however, it is unlikely.
    As I said at the beginning, measuring fluid through pipes is one of the easiest and most straightforward of techniques. It is far less sophisticated than the measurement of gas, electricity or anything else. The flow
    930
    of liquid is straightforward and I see no great cause for concern. The pilot scheme will sort the problem out. We are starting off gently with pilot schemes to see how the system goes and to meet public opinion and demand. We are targeting the poor in this, as in all the other things we are doing, such as the review of the welfare state and the community charge, where we are helping the old lady who is living on her own. In exactly the same way, with water metering we are helping the old lady living on her own. If a person wants to economise, he need not have a big bath and he can top up the water in the kettle. People can save themselves money if they have a metered system, whereas with rateable values they have no choice but to meet on demand the bill that is sent. I hope the hon. Gentleman is big enough to withdraw the amendment, which is unnecessary.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Boyes: We will not support the amendment. I do not intend to develop the arguments but wish to make just one point. These are trials and during the trials we expect special conditions to apply. People will be concerned and worried, particularly if they suspect that their bills are higher under metering than when assessed on rateable values. As all hon. Members know, when new techniques are used, the elderly are often worried. I do not see why they should be limited to one inspection per year, particularly if the first inspection shows that the meter is faulty. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that measuring water is simple, but simple things in the hands of this Government can become complicated.
    We want trial meters to be tested on request. If that means that someone wants a meter tested less than 12 months after the first test, it should be done. We do not want to limit people to one test in 12 months. The water undertaker might argue that because there had been a test within the last 12 months, even though the bill might be higher than the equivalent bill under rateable valuation, the meter could not be tested again.
    To suggest that people will ring in each day is insulting to the vast majority of those taking part in the trials. While many people will not like meters and will have to be cajoled or even forced to have them, they will act responsibly. If they think that the meter needs to be tested, they will request a test. During the trials I hope that if someone feels great anxiety that the meter is not working correctly, proper tests will be done.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am surprised at the contribution by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I gave him a clear undertaking that I would consider the possibility of customers taking part in the trial being offered free of charge at least one test of the accuracy of their meters. I noted his assent. He was pleased that I gave that undertaking because he recognised, as hon. Members on both sides of the House do, that we must ensure, if possible, that someone who is elderly, say, who is not used to having a meter and who is anxious about its accuracy should have the opportunity to have that anxiety removed.
    One way of removing the anxiety is to have the meter tested or to have proper authorisation of the meter which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, is highly unlikely to be inaccurate. Because we wanted to remove anxiety we moved from our original position of saying that there

    931
    would be no free test for meters to the commitment that I gave to the hon. Member in Committee. I also gave that commitment in writing to the hon. Member in a letter dated 21 December. I said that I would look at the matter with all the water undertakers and try to reconcile the concerns and worries expressed by him and by other Opposition Members.
    I am currently taking up that concern. I am sorry that in the three working weeks since Christmas it has not been possible to come to a firm conclusion and to discuss a specific provision with the Water Authorities Association, but I gave a clear undertaking that the anxieties expressed would not be swept under the carpet and would be taken account of, and that I would ensure that they were given further consideration in detailed discussions. I would regret it if the hon. Member pressed the point to a vote, because that commitment was made with integrity, and was so recognised by Labour Members.
    I hope that our discussions will soon reach a final outcome and I will be in a position to give a commitment. The position will become clearer by the time the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If we have not come to a satisfactory solution by then, the hon. Member will have the opportunity to table an amendment in another place. We shall be pushed to try to get a complete answer by then, but I give the commitment that I will do everything I can. If I have not succeeded, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends may wish to pursue the matter in the House of Lords, if they are unsatisfied with the speed of progress.
    I will not go into the detail of the substantive provisions, not least because the Department of Trade and Industry has put forward proposals for accurate regulations to ensure and certify that all meters on the market meet approved European standards as well as national standards. Hon. Members in Committee may have read the detailed brief on that point, so I will not keep the House by repeating that. The commitment I gave in the debate is important. I hope that it will persuade the hon. Member for Truro to allow at least a breather between now and the time that the Bill goes to the House of Lords so that he is in a position to reconsider the thrust of the arguments he has put before the House this evening.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the Minister for his reply and his commitment, if possible, to come forward with a firm proposal before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. In view of that commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 8

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 38, leave out
    'Sections 2 to 6 above and the Schedules to'.
    We have had 20 sittings of the Bill in Committee in order to guarantee and protect our democracy and our parliamentary process. It is clear, from the way that clause 8(2) omits clause 1 from the clauses which are regulated, that this undermines our parliamentary process and therefore our democracy.
    In moving amendment No. 7 we are trying to redress the damage that would be caused if our amendments are not accepted by the Government, because clause 1 relates
    932
    to privatisation and is a eunuch clause. Superficially, clause 1 governs the transfer of powers from existing authorities to future authorities which will be privatised, but the Bill is not an enabling Bill; it circumvents. Water authorities, acting alone or with the Government, can circumvent Parliament in many ways.
    Although clauses 2 to 6 regulate the conditions and circumstances in which water meters will be introduced, the Bill leaves completely unregulated the fundamental question of ownership, control and management of a water authority, and thereby circumvents Parliament in a number of ways. It does so by the extent to which water authorities can spend public money in publicising a sale to the private sector, a sale which I submit has no guaranteed improvement, interest or gain for the consumer. We know of pending litigation in this regard in relation to the Severn-Trent water authority.
    In effect, water authorities can use public money to give away public assets with no or little safeguard for the public interest or for consumers. Water authorities can fatten themselves up for a sale which ultimately can only line the pockets of the private sector.
    It also leaves unregulated the transfer of assets from a water authority to a newly privatised company. A water authority could sell the lucrative side of the business. It could sell reservoirs in which large investments had been made at public expense in recent years. It could sell main piping systems which had been installed, again at public expense in recent years. At the same time, it could retain the liabilities which are unsellable—the liabilities of old water mains systems or smaller piping systems, the kind of systems which in Committee we have referred to in relation to water in much of the Thames area. So the public sector could be left with the old Victorian liabilities while the private sector creamed off the public investment which has been put in to improve our water system.
    As the Bill is currently constructed, clause 8 leaves unrestricted any potential changes in employment. Without reference to Parliament a water authority could completely restructure the labour force. People who had gained skills and experience, much of it at public expense in public training centres, could be cast aside. Contractors could be introduced, with all the cowboy practices and cut price wage levels. All of this, which I believe would seriously undermine the industry, could happen without reference to Parliament. A water authority could even make most of its staff redundant, at enormous cost to the public purse in redundancy payments, and at the same time introduce private contractors. All this would be designed to fatten up the industry for a future sale.
    The Minister stated in Committee that
    "it is not the Government's intention that the Bill should give enabling powers to water authorities to prepare for proposals other than those set down by the Government for the privatisation of the water and electricity industries." [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 November 1987; c. 79.]
    That may on the surface seem fair enough, but our point is that that definition is far too wide. If it is taken literally it allows the Government to go ahead without reference to Parliament and virtually to do anything in relation to the sale of the water industry or the electricity industry.
    I believe that, regardless of what we might hear about mandates at general elections and prior notification of Government intentions, the public do not want to see their water industry sold off without further reference to their

    933
    opinion. People still have some faith in the Parliament of this country because they believe that at least there is a chance to air their views. Our point in presenting this amendment is that if the Government do not accept it they are abrogating their commitment to democracy. I believe that Parliament should decide the future of the water industry. If after a debate in Parliament the arguments of the Opposition are lost, at least we have had a chance to refer to important issues and to reflect public opinion that agrees with our views. Likewise, the Government have the opportunity to build up their case.
    We must remember that Parliament has built up protection for the water industry over many years. Victorian sewers did not suddenly appear; sewage in the streets did not suddenly disappear; or dirty water from our taps. We have a sensible system of disposing of dirty water and providing clean water only because in Victorian days and afterwards Parliament decided that that should happen. The legislation came from several political parties rather than one. They all thought that something should be done.
    9.30 pm
    People in this country are proud of our water system. If they travel abroad they say, "I am not having their water. It is not nearly so good as ours. I do not trust it and I will stick to bottled water." We all have experience of that attitude. Often, British people will not drink water even in Sweden where the water system is as good as ours. They do not believe that the water comes from a good system that has stood the test of time in the same way as the British system. That pride should be retained. It is offensive to that pride for the Government to decide to introduce a major change to the structure of the water industry without referring to Parliament.
    Parliament should decide whether this country wants to retain an integrated water industry, with control of the disposal of dirty water and provision of clean water under one authority. The majority of water authorities have argued that that is an important factor in achieving high standards of efficiency in the industry. It was certainly the case until very recently that the chairmen of all the water authorities argued that case. I believe that factor underlies the reluctance of the chairmen of the water authorities to agree to divest any power to the National Rivers Authority. We must remember that all of those chairmen were appointed by the Government. They were not appointees of a previous Government, who were making a political point to the industry. The chairmen were appointed by the Government, who wished to introduce their ideology into the industry. Yet the chairmen say that it makes sense to have an integrated industry, not a divided one.
    The industry could be broken up by an act of Government and not by an Act of Parliament under this so-called enabling Bill. After our argument and debate, it might be decided that it makes some sense to divide the responsibility for our water industry. I do not think that it will make sense. If the case is tested, people surely will accept that there should be one integrated structure for the industry. But it is proper for a division of responsibility to be decided by Parliament, and not by the Government at any particular time.
    934
    I have never been convinced that there was a strong case for the enabling Bill. If the Government wanted to pursue their case to sell the industry, they should have put forward their detailed proposals and made specific points about the National Rivers Authority rather than what we have seen in the White Paper. It says that the arrangements for the water industry might be this way or that way and there might be some advantage in this or that. It was incumbent on the Government to say that this was the kind of structure that they envisaged because it would be efficient and acceptable for the industry. We would like a public debate. After that public debate, they could have come forward with specific proposals on how to change the structure of the industry.
    However, what has actually happened is that, because we have had this Bill, the Government can now prepare the way for effectively doing what they want with our water industry, without any further reference to Parliament, for up to two years from now. Much irreversible change and potential damage could be done to the industry during that period of time and that would be wrong.
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Unlike the observation made earlier from the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend's suggestion reflects the great deal of public fear, which could only become entrenched, especially about the reductions in the standards of water purification in the system that we have come to revere.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that key point. That is another area in which hon. Members of all parties would recognise that there is a problem, even with our pride in our water supply. If our water supply now—good as it has been in the past — does not match the required European standards—and there is much evidence that it probably does not at this stage — money needs to be spent on the industry to ensure that we comply with those standards. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point because people who believe that that is the case do not know, if they agree to selling off the industry, whether a new privatised company would be prepared to accept that liability. After making a killing in the sell-off, the privatised company may end up being subsidised by Government to achieve the necessary reforms to which anyone with a sensible knowledge of public health standards would want to ensure that we adhere.
    If the Bill is passed without our amendment, in effect, the public and Parliament would not have any control and would be excluded from the process of selling off and changing the structure of the industry. I was tempted to say "breaking up the industry" but I can live with the phraseology of "changing the structure of the industry".
    The important point is that that would be an abnegation of our democracy. The Minister has shown that he is, at least in part, prepared to listen to some of the arguments that were put to him in Committee, so I hope that he will recognise that the amendment is fundamental and that he will understand its importance and say to the Secretary of State, "I think that we should accept this amendment to make sure that public control is returned to the people."
    Mr. Dickens: I am pleased that Opposition Members are not pressing their amendment, so I do not want to antagonise them at this stage. However, there is an

    935
    important point that they may not have thought about. Millions of people throughout the United Kingdom have what are described as "unadopted sewers", not because those sewers are actually unadopted but because of sloppy work by earlier councils, bad minute taking, and because they were not delineated on maps, which means that those people cannot prove to the satisfaction of the local authority that the sewers have been adopted.
    If there is a breakage in any of those sewers, a bill of apportionment goes to each household out of the blue. These people are sitting on timebombs. I am talking about millions of people who will look to the privatisation of water Bill as perhaps providing them with some relief. It may be possible— I do not put it more strongly than that — for the Department, when it is negotiating, to encourage the water authorities to take on those sewers as part of the deal. That would be the very best, but, at the very worst, perhaps the Department could encourage the water authorities to come to some financial arrangement with those millions of people throughout the country whereby they could reach a financial settlement to free themselves from the timebombs on which they are sitting.
    I know that Opposition Members hold sincere views, but I remind them that millions of people look to the water privatisation Bill as perhaps the only way of getting out of a great dilemma about old sewers that may not have been adopted. In most cases they have been adopted, but that cannot be proved.
    Mr. Moynihan: The results of the sewerage law review are being considered by my colleagues in the Department. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that his comments have been well aired, Will be taken into account and that the outcome of those considerations will in part be reflected in the main Bill. I can assure the hon. Member that his points about the future shape of the water industry will be at the heart of the substantive legislation that will be prepared during the coming months and brought before Parliament in the autumn. The detailed consultation exercise, not least on the National Rivers Authority, will be critical.
    The amendment is proposed to clause 8 which deals with the commencement and extent of the provisions of the Bill. When first presented to e House, subsection (2) provided that clauses 2 to 6 and the schedules to the Bill would come into force two months after Royal Assent. That provision was amended by me in Committee to make the coming into force of those provisions dependent upon an order or orders made by the Secretary of State through statutory instrument appointing a day or days for commencement. As I explained in Committee, the amendment served to give flexibility and to help the consumers and the undertakers. I offered various examples of the way in which we expected to use that flexibility. Our amendment allows the Secretary of State to delay the coming into force of that provision until undertakers have had sufficient opportunity to let their metered customers know about the new requirement. I explained in Committee that the Bill's other provisions, in particular clause 1, would come into force on Royal Assent. The Opposition amendment would mean instead that those other provisions would require an order, or orders, made by the Secretary of State to come into force.
    We do not consider that this additional procedural requirement is either necessary or appropriate for the other provisions. We wish to see neither delay nor the
    936
    prospect of delay between the enactment of the Bill and the availability to water authorities and the electricity supply industry of the express power provided to them by clause 1.
    Once the will of Parliament has been expressed and Parliament has approved the Bill, the water authorities will wish to put the clause 1 power into use and make progress towards the new structure for the industry that we have proposed. The amendment seeks to introduce an unnecessary procedural hurdle into the work of preparation and it should be withdrawn. Despite having had a rather wide-ranging debate on an amendment which I followed with interest, I am not completely sure how closely it followed amendment No. 7.
    Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has covered the amendment extremely well and left little for me to say. I can only reiterate that the proposals for privatisation in the Bill allow the authorities to do virtually anything. We argued at length in Committee about that. We are concerned about the undermining of democracy and the circumventing of Parliament—two key themes—in that the role of Parliament is continuously reduced by the activities of Ministers. Opposition Members are adamant that we shall ensure that the main enabling Ball is vigorously opposed.
    The Minister has not explained why it is necessary to have an enabling Bill. I beg the Minister's indulgence to ask a further question about the relationship between the privatisation proposals and VAT. When the Minister answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) he did not appear to realise that the European Court decision to which my hon. Friend referred related specifically to industrial users of water. The Minister should get hold of an article in The Independent on Tuesday 8 December 1987 in which there is a discussion of the Commission's general VAT rate and harmonisation measures. It refers to a 4 per cent. to 9 per cent. charge on water users. Presumably that applies to both industrial and domestic users. Water supply is included among the list of half a dozen possibilities for VAT, which also includes foodstuffs. The Minister may not wish to respond immediately; he may want to consider that point carefully. There is a clear distinction in this case. The Minister is honest and has never misled us and I accept that he gave his earlier reply with all integrity.
    9.45 pm
    Ms. Quin: The Government have given a commitment that they would not apply VAT to food, children's clothes or fuel. However, they have not given an assurance that they would not impose it on books, newspapers, periodicals or water charges, despite the case in the European Court. As I understand it, the European Commission's general proposals for VAT harmonisation include water charges, which would relate to industrial and domestic users.
    Mr. Boyes: As the Minister is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East is still a Member of the European Parliament and she follows Commission matters closely. We are trying to be helpful as well as trying to elicit information. If the Minister prefers to have a little time on this matter, it would be acceptable if he gave us a written reply. However, we disagree with his argument on amendment No. 7.
    Mr. Moynihan: It would be foolish of a Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and pre-empt any possible decision that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may take about the Budget. I would not wander down that road on any of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and that covers every aspect of the budgetary process. Opposition Members must be aware that I would not do that. However, the Commission's proceedings against the United Kingdom are relevant. I want to make it clear—and I repeat this point—that the case does not concern domestic supplies. It is only relevant for industry and I place that on the record.
    Amendment negatived.

  Schedule 1

    PROVISIONS RELATING TO METERS ETC.
    Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 30, leave out 'so much' and insert 'no part'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 31, leave out
    `as is attributable to compliance with a request'
    and insert
    'if a reasonable request is'.
    Ms. Walley: I want to be brief. If the amendment was accepted it would amount to a reasonable amendment to the Bill as any "reasonable request" by a water consumer would mean that where it was necessary to adjust or change the siting of a water meter in someone's home the water undertaker or water company would meet the cost rather than the individual consumer.
    It is important to put the amendments into the context of the legislation as a whole. Consumers have every right to be concerned about the legislation's financial effects, not only on those who are facing increased charges as a result of the installation of water meters in the compulsory metering areaa, but on those throughout the country who will have to meet the extra costs incurred as a result of paying off outstanding debts to water authorities to pave the way for privatisation. On top of that, consumers are likely to face a position whereby water authorities will state that a water meter must be sited in a particular position in a home. The consumer will have to meet the cost should it be necessary to change the position of that water meter.
    It would be easy to extend the references made earlier about consumer protection to some kind of charter for consumers which would include the right for any consumer to make a reasonable demand or suggestion to the water authority about where a meter should be sited. It seems to us entirely wrong and unfair that consumers should be forced to have a meter in their own homes, in a totally unsuitable place, or to meet the cost of putting such meters elsewhere. It is on the basis of extending consumer rights in the water industry that we have tabled these reasonable amendments.
    Mr. Moynihan: The amendments would place on most undertakers an unacceptable burden of needless expenditure. Undertakers would not be able to recover the extra costs associated with resiting a meter in a position other than that reasonably proposed by the undertaker.
    The question of reasonable location for meters would be governed by regulations on siting to be made under clause 5. The hon. Lady is aware of the three options for
    938
    siting: close to the curtilage of the property, either outside or inside the boundary; as near as possible to the outer wall of the building, and as close as possible to the entry point of the supply pipe into the building; or inside the building, as close as possible to both the internal stop tap and the entry point of the supply pipe into the building or dwelling. Undertakers should respond to reasonable requests to resite meters, and it will be open to them, in some exceptional circumstances, not to make a charge for that.
    If that were as far as we went, I would feel that the hon. Lady had a case. However, the most important and critical part of the argument that I am developing is that, in cases of dispute, there is scope for arbitration under schedule 1, paragraph 9. The hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of a totally unsuitable place. I would argue that the possibility of a meter being placed in a totally unsuitable place might well be covered in arbitration. However, it is unacceptable for undertakers always to be required to bear the full cost of resiting meters, especially when the original positioning of the meter complies with regulations to be made under the Bill. Undertakers could be forced into lengthy arbitration about what constitutes a reasonable request, for which all their customers would pay through future Bills.
    I hope that my explanation of the importance that we attach to the need for arbitration will find agreement coming from Opposition Members as well as my hon. Friends, and I invite the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Boyes: The Minister has talked about scope for arbitration. However, it is interesting that, in replying to the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), he never once mentioned the word "consumer". His reply was all about the annoyance, inconvenience and concern of the water undertakers. It never entered his head that we had handed him on a golden platter the opportunity to disprove much of what we have been arguing this evening, and for many hours in Committee: that Opposition Members are concerned first and foremost with the consumers' needs, concerns and worries. Once again, the Minister stands up and says, "Well, it might inconvenience the water undertaker if someone wanted a meter moved." Of course it might, but that is the kind of business that we are in. Water undertakers may find themselves inconvenienced from time to time.
    We are on the side of the consumer. We shall continue to fight for the consumers' rights and to lobby for the consumer. We accept that the final vote this evening will go the Government's way. However, many people will be concerned with water meter trials, and, after that, with universal metering. Right up to the end of the Bill, we shall continue, with strengthened arguments, to protect the rights of the consumer.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.54 pm
    Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    This is a short Bill, but one which is important both to the Government's privatisation programme, and the future arrangements for charging for water supplies. We have had an exhaustive examination of it in Committee, and I believe that we represent the Bill to the House with some significant improvements.

    939
    I confess myself deeply impressed by the knowledge of hon. Members on the various subjects, but perhaps chiefly by the expertise of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) whose past service in the water industry was frequently in evidence to assist the elucidation of many otherwise obscure points.
    In Committee, we amended the metering and charges provisions. In particular, we introduced a new provision to enable water undertakers to require the installation of meters in new or converted houses, or to stipulate that plumbing he suitable for later installation of meters.
    Provided that the House gives the Bill a Third Reading tonight, as I am confident it will, it will go from here to another place significantly strengthened and improved not least, indeed foremost, in the interests of the consumer. Those of us most concerned can now turn our attentions to the policy objectives that the Bill enables us to implement. We look forward with confidence to the successful introduction of privatisation legislation, both for water and electricity, and to the programme of metering trials and the lessons that we in Government, and the water industry, will learn from that.
    I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.55 pm
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Much has been made of the importance of the metering trials and much of what the Minister has said will reassure people. Many may be ignorant of the fact that we have had metering of water since the end of the 19th century.
    The most important feature of the Bill is that it prepares the way for privatisation. The privatisation policies of the Government have been one of our major successes. More than a third of those previously working in the public sector are now working in the private sector. People are more responsible for their own lives, managing their own companies and keeping Whitehall further away from their concerns.
    Many will be reassured by the proposals for a National Rivers Authority providing for integrated river management and pollution control. Recently, there has been worry about the quality of our rivers: our constituents will bear testimony that this is a subject of growing concern.
    This may be one of the last opportunities to discuss the substantive issues involved in privatisation before the Government finalise their proposals. Before moving forward, at this stage I would like my hon. Friend to give full consideration to the model offered by the statutory water companies. Much is made of the fact that 25 per cent. of water is already supplied by the 28 statutory water companies. I have the privilege to be a director of one of those companies. My friend, Sir John Page, the former Member for Harrow, West, now chairman of the Water Companies Association, previously had a similar responsibility.
    The Labour party has frequently spoken about the needs of the consumer. Statutory water companies, based on a philosophy of service, act as mutual companies together with the consumers. The dividends are limited by law and surplus funds must be applied to reducing future water rates. With the provision of water serious consideration must be given to long-term investment. Each generation provides the long-term infrastructure necessary to supply water for future generations. If we
    940
    move towards plcs, primarily focusing on the returns to the shareholder, there may be serious implications for the water industry.
    I ask my hon. Friend to follow the advice offered by my noble Friend Lord Nugent the other day who asked that the model of the statutory water company, a tried, tested and trusted model, should be given every consideration before the Government moved further with legislation for water privatisation. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
    9.58 pm
    Mr. O'Brien: We have discussed at great length tonight certain issues that will be affected by the Bill. However, there is one issue to which we have not referred, but which I consider to be the most important. When the trial schemes were suggested or introduced by water undertakings no opportunity was given to the people involved in those trial areas to decide whether they wanted to be included. We consider that to be totally undemocratic.
    The people who are taking part in the trial areas have been dragooned into the trials and on that premise we shall divide the House on Third Reading. We consider the Bill to be totally unfair, unreasonable and undemocratic. Against that background we suggest that the Government should withdraw the Bill or we shall vote against it.
    10 pm
    Mr. Moynihan: By leave of the House, I should like to express my thanks to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and those other hon. Members who have contributed to our deliberations today.
    I spoke earlier of the contribution of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), but I should like to place on record my appreciation of the efforts of all the Committee members in scrutinising and testing the Bill's provisions.
    The Bill is concerned with two of Britain's most essential industries. The attention that it has received has been commensurate with the importance of the subject. The Bill has been thoroughly considered in Committee and our discussions today have allowed further examination of some of its most important aspects. It is now ready to go to another place, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 223.

    Division No. 163]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Allason, Rupert

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Amess, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkins, Robert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Atkinson, David

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowis, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Brazier, Julian

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bright, Graham

    Bendall, Vivian

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Benyon, W.

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    941

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Burns, Simon

    Hayward, Robert

    Burt, Alistair

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butcher, John

    Heddle, John

    Butler, Chris

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Cash, William

    Holt, Richard

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Howard, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Conway, Derek

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Cope, John

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Cran, James

    Irving, Charles

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Jack, Michael

    Curry, David

    Jackson, Robert

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Janman, Timothy

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knapman, Roger

    Dover, Den

    Knowles, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lang, Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Eggar, Tim

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evennett, David

    Lilley, Peter

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fallon, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Farr, Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Favell, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forman, Nigel

    Moate, Roger

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Moss, Malcolm

    Franks, Cecil

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Freeman, Roger

    Neale, Gerrard

    French, Douglas

    Needham, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Page, Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Paice, James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gow, Ian

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Pawsey, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Grist, Ian

    Price, Sir David

    Ground, Patrick

    Raffan, Keith

    Grylls, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Redwood, John

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Riddick, Graham

    Hannam, John

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Harris, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    942

    Rost, Peter

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Tracey, Richard

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Trippier, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shersby, Michael

    Walden, George

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Ward, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Speed, Keith

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speller, Tony

    Watts, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wells, Bowen

    Squire, Robin

    Wheeler, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wilshire, David

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stokes, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sumberg, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Summerson, Hugo

    Woodcock, Mike

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Tellers for theAyes:

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. David Lightbown.

    Thorne, Neil

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Coleman, Donald

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Donald

    Corbett, Robin

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Cousins, Jim

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Cox, Tom

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashton, Joe

    Cryer, Bob

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cummings, J.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Battle, John

    Dalyell, Tarm

    Beckett, Margaret

    Darling, Alastair

    Beith, A. J.

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dewar, Donald

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Dixon, Don

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dobson, Frank

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Doran, Frank

    Blair, Tony

    Douglas, Dick

    Blunkett, David

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Boateng, Paul

    Dunnachie, James

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradley, Keith

    Eadie, Alexander

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Buckley, George

    Faulds, Andrew

    Caborn, Richard

    Fearn, Ronald

    Callaghan, Jim

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Flannery, Martin

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Flynn, Paul

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

    Foster, Derek

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Foulkes, George

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Fraser, John

    Clay, Bob

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Clelland, David

    Galbraith, Samuel

    943

    Galloway, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Morley, Elliott

    George, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Mullin, Chris

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Murphy, Paul

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Nellist, Dave

    Graham, Thomas

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    O'Brien, William

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Grocott, Bruce

    Parry, Robert

    Hardy, Peter

    Patchett, Terry

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Pendry, Tom

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pike, Peter

    Henderson, Douglas

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Prescott, John

    Holland, Stuart

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Home Robertson, John

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hood, James

    Radice, Giles

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Randall, Stuart

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Redmond, Martin

    Howells, Geraint

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hoyle, Doug

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rogers, Allan

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ingram, Adam

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Janner, Greville

    Salmond, Alex

    John, Brynmor

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kilfedder, James

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Short, Clare

    Lambie, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lamond, James

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Leighton, Ron

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Snape, Peter

    Lewis, Terry

    Soley, Clive

    Litherland, Robert

    Spearing, Nigel

    Livingstone, Ken

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Livsey, Richard

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Stott, Roger

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Strang, Gavin

    McAllion, John

    Straw, Jack

    McAvoy, Tom

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McCartney, Ian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    McFall, John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Turner, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Wall, Pat

    McLeish, Henry

    Wallace, James

    McNamara, Kevin

    Walley, Ms Joan

    McTaggart, Bob

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    McWilliam, John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Madden, Max

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Marek, Dr John

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wilson, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Winnick, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Maxton, John

    Worthington, Anthony

    Meacher, Michael

    Wray, James

    Meale, Alan

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Industrial Training Levy
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
Our debate tonight takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982. In the case of the Engineering Industry Training Board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1·12 per cent. and requires approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The board's levy proposals for 1988 show no change from those approved by the House in March of last year. The board anticipates that it will raise some £19·6 million from the levy, after allowing for exemption. The levy will apply to those firms which fall within the scope of the board between the date the order comes into force and 31 August 1988.
The levy proposals are in two parts, the first applying to mainstream engineering, and the second to the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry. I shall briefly outline the proposals in both sectors.
For mainstream engineering establishments the board proposes a total levy of I per cent. of an employer's payroll. For an establishment with fewer than 1,000 employees, 0·08 per cent. of payroll will be non-exemptible; larger establishments will pay a non-exemptible levy of 0·08 per cent. in respect of the first 1,000 employees and 0·072 per cent. in respect of the remainder. The bulk of the levy is therefore non-exemptible— that is, employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for this and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employing 40 workers or fewer will be excluded totally from paying levy. Some 68 per cent. of firms employing 12 per cent. of the work force will be excluded from levy because of their size.
For the mechanical and electrical engineering construction sector, again the levy proposals are the same as those approved last year. In this sector, arrangements differ for workers employed on site, and those employed off site. For on-site employees no levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll; above that, a non-exemptible levy of 1·12 per cent. will apply, and 31 per cent. of establishments employing 0–5 per cent. of the work force will be below the levy threshold.
For off-site employees, establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from levy; this will mean that some 79 per cent. of establishments employing 11 per cent. of the work force will not pay levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of this levy will be 0·15 per cent.
The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0·2 per cent. in the on-site sector means that the board must satisfy another requirement of the Industrial Training Act 1982 — that there should be a proven employer consensus in the industry for the proposals. Employer

945
organisations representing more than half the employers liable to pay levy, and also representing employers liable to pay more than half the total levy between them, have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions of the Act.
The proposals before the House that we are debating tonight were approved unanimously by the board and the Manpower Services Commission. They show no change from those approved by the House in March last year. Therefore, I commend them to the House.
10.16 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: As usual, the Opposition support the order and congratulate the board on its past work and proven desire to adopt and adapt to the changing realities of training. Some of us get used to the routine of supporting orders such as this and I welcome the Minister to yet another late night session.
Since last year, a number of initiatives have come out of the Engineering Industry Training Board which has long recognised that, even with the levy exemption system and a statutory board for this sector of industry, there is still a failure adequately to train sufficient highly skilled men and women to maintain this leading, indeed the largest, sector of our manufacturing industry.
Even with the small economic upturn that we have seen in recent months, and against the backdrop of an industry which now employs only 1·9 million workers when as recently as 1979 it was employing 3 million workers, we are already experiencing dreadful skill shortages in the industry which strike dangerously at the heart of our ability to compete successfuly as an industrial nation and successfully to create wealth by meeting the challenges of technology and international markets.
Only last month a report—I wait for the Minister to listen to this because it is something that he should digest and think about — from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research revealed the appalling gap that exists, and progressively opens, between us and the major countries with which we are in direct competition in the engineering sector.
The report reveals that between 1975 and 1985—a period of 10 years — compared with Germany and France we have done appallingly badly at producing a trained work force with engineering qualifications. Between 1975 and 1985 France increased by 60 per cent. the numbers of people obtaining craft-level vocational qualifications. In the same period, Germany increased its numbers by 35 per cent. And what did Britain do? The United Kingdom achieved a decrease in the numbers of these skilled personnel of 30 per cent. That is a depressing picture to paint on a night when we are discussing the Engineering Industry Training Board and its ability to carry out its functions on its present levy and on the levy proposed tonight. Let me put the percentages in real numbers of how many people obtained craft engineering qualifications: 10,800 received them in 1985 in this country; in France, 27,000 qualified—two and a half times as many; in Germany, 55,000 qualified—five times more.
Even on a night when we agree with the order, I recommend that the Minister read the national institute's report seriously and examine its recommendations. They are not all to be swallowed at one gulp, but the report
946
shows that France and Germany, using different methods from ours, are taking training in the engineering industry seriously and attempting to do something about it. France, like us, started from well behind the Germans, but recognised that there was a problem and used its own institutions in its own way to meet the challenge. The problem with our country is that the Government do not recognise the problem or react to the challenge.
Why, in spite of the training board and the levy, does our country fail to produce the skills that we need? I shall suggest some reasons; we have rehearsed them before, but it is worth telling the House about them tonight. First, only 50 per cent. of those working in the engineering industry work in the engineering sector as described in the Industrial Training Act 1982. Fifty per cent. work outside in the service industries, the financial sector and beyond. They are beyond the remit of the board and outside its scope. One might agree with some of the engineering employers who ask why they should train qualified engineers when they will be recruited by someone who paid nowt for their training.
Secondly, employers with fewer than 40 employees are on the register but are not included in the liability for the levy. That is a large percentage. This country has many small engineering workshops with about 20 or 30 men. So 12·5 per cent. of the industry goes out, because firms with fewer than 40 are excluded. Thirdly, some of the small and large companies that have long been regarded as reasonable trainers have never understood the crucial fact that British companies, unlike our international competitors, seem unable to grasp, which is that our companies too often regard training not as an investment but as a cost. That is a sad reflection on what is happening to the training of the work force in this country.
Over the past nine years the Government have abolished all but a handful of statutory training boards. I am sorry to say that the recent Anderson report for the Manpower Services Commission shows what has happened to the sectors of the industry for which the boards were abolished. We know how disastrous that has been for all those sectors, apart from the few examples that the reports picks out as shining lights in a dark and tragic picture.
The Government have spent most of their money on programmes centred on the unemployed. That is not surprising, as unemployment has risen under the Government's policies. So most of the wealth put the way of training has been for programmes that are not so much for training but for income support aimed at the unemployed. What has been wrong with the country and what has happened to the Engineering Industry Training Board—even with its levy—has been an inability to do as much as can and should be done to train the work force in work, which is the fastest route to increasing productivity and wealth creation.
The Government have never understood the central lesson that other competitive countries have learned, that the sum of individual companies pursuing their individual training progammes, their own company interests and their own company benefits, will never add up to a training programme for this or any other sector of industry. What is more, it will never add up to anything that produces a training policy in the national interest.
There is only one body responsible for the national interest—the Government. But this Government have a total lack of a national strategy. It has always been

947
replaced by a potent and corrosive ideology. The Engineering Industry Training Board has informed the Government often of the crisis in engineering training. We faced a crisis last year and the year before; we have faced it over the last nine years. [Interruption.] The Minister's hon. Friend seems to be running a book; it would be interesting to know what he is betting on. I should not like to run a book on the crisis in the engineering industry. If hon. Members want to bet on the British racehorse in terms of competitiveness, it is not a very good one to bet on under this Government. We are in the midst of a steel crisis and we are facing bottlenecks, steel shortages and a loss of competitiveness internationally.
The Government are still obsessed with the myth that the free market will deliver what the country needs with no real Government direction. The Labour party says that what is needed is leadership and commitment to provide a trained base of human resource without which we cannot succeed, as every industrial nation knows. We should look to the future, not towards yesterday or how well we did 20 or 100 years ago.
At the beginning of the week I had a meeting with the Engineering Employers' Federation. It was a disturbing and worrying experience. When I have talked to its counterparts in the United States, Germany and France, I have found people who want to move into innovation and who have prepared themselves and their country for future challenges and for being in the forefront of technology and engineering. What I found with the Engineering Employers' Federation here was a great desire to remain in the past, to look only to the short-term future of their own companies and not to the future of their sector or their country. I find that profoundly depressing and disturbing.
Some of the nostrums so popular in organisations like the Engineering Employers' Federation will be the epitaph of British industry in years to come unless we have a Government who say that they have a national interest to train. There must be a strategy to train. We must take it forward in a leadership role. I suspect that the Government will allow organisations like the Engineering Employers' Federation to lead. Indeed, the proposals to change the complexion of the board and the nature of the Manpower Services Commission lead me to believe that there is no longer a national strategy for training but merely a wish to follow the dictates of individual companies. I repeat that that does not open the way to a strategy for training that will benefit this country in the years to come.
So I end on a profoundly pessimistic note. Yes, we have an Engineering Industry Training Board and it is doing a relatively good job. But much more needs to be done in this sector. Mechanisms, plans and an impetus from Government are needed so that training in this sector is taken on as never before.
I refer to a report in the Financial Times only this week which I think gets to the heart of the problem. A study of the training programmes of major companies in this country shows that often even the large companies—and in terms of the engineering industry this means those with tremendous clout and with more than 1,000 employees —have little real direction in their training programmes. They do not know what their training is supposed to secure. They do not have a training plan that prepares the company to face the future. Indeed, many of the training programmes described by the Manpower Services
948
Commission only this week are more a laying on of hands, to be able to say that they are training, doing the basics rather than doing what our competitors in the United States, Germany and Japan are doing. How can we put ourselves in the forefront of training for the new, innovative age of the next 10 or 20 years?
We shall not oppose this order, but we are profoundly worried about the direction of engineering training in this country.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
MR. MARK LENNOX-BOYD and MR. DAVID LIGHTBOWN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, MADAM DEPLTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1988, which was., laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition spokesman to say from the Dispatch Box that the Opposition will not oppose the order, but for the Opposition Whip who is on duty to shout in a very loud voice, along with his colleagues, demanding a vote on the matter? Clearly the left hand does not know what the left hand is doing in the Labour party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

PETITIONS

  Rating Reform (Scotland)
  10.36 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for the fact that a Division was called, thus giving me the opportunity to leave a Standing Committee and come to the Chamber to present this petition on behalf of 235 members of the Prestonpans Labour party club. It calls on the House to repeal the legislation imposing a poll tax in Scotland.
  It is well known that there is universal feeling in Scotland that the legislation is pernicious and unfair and is likely to cause terrible hardship for many people on low incomes. There is universal feeling in Scotland that the House would be well advised to repeal this damaging legislation. I have no hesitation in supporting the petition on behalf of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: For the convenience of the House, I shall present two petitions together, which are both for the repeal of the iniquitous poll tax legislation that is euphemistically entitled the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act.
  The two petitions are from all the members of the Cumnock and district branch of the National Association of Widows, and from the residents of Rankinston, a mining town in my constituency. The petition was carried out by S. McColgan of Scenery Hill cottage, Rankinston.

  949
  The number of signatures on the petition is 420, which is almost all the adult population of Rankinston. They vote almost 100 per cent. Labour—and all the better for it.
  Both the Cumnock and district branch of the National Association of Widows and the residents of Rankiston petition the House for the repeal of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, the iniquitous poll tax measure, because it is unworkable and it will be much more costly to raise the same amount of money, or in some cases less money, raised by the present rating system. Above all, it is unfair.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of almost 1,000 residents of the Western Isles. The petition complains that the introduction of the community charge, or poll tax, will impose upon the people of the Western Isles and upon the people of Scotland in general an unfair tax that is inefficient, to boot. It will hit particularly hard those who are already poor and also rural areas. It will be expensive to administer and it will entail intolerable intrusions upon privacy to administer.
  The petition concludes with a prayer to repeal the tax.
  To lie upon the Table.

Confectionery (Value Added Tax)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
10.36 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am very grateful for this opportunity to consider the removal of value added tax from crisps, nuts and confectionery, including chocolate biscuits. I am also pleased that some Conservative Members are present, and I hope that at least one of them will take part in the debate.
I understand the convention that it is difficult —perhaps awkward—for the Minister to make a specific response to the matter that I am raising, certainly in quantitative terms. However, I hope that, after listening to the contributions, he will accept that issues of taxation principle are at stake and that he will feel able to refer to those principles and to give the Government's view on them, even if he enters a caveat on when any Government action might take place or the extent to which that Government action might alter the current position. I hope that the Minister will not hide behind convention —indeed, I urge him not to do so—and I hope that he will explain the Government's view on what I believe is an important issue, affecting nearly everyone in the country.
For more than a decade, hungry mouths in nearly every home have been eating crisps, nuts, confectionery, biscuits and so on, on which value added tax has been paid. At the same time—this is not a criticism; it is a comparison—food at the rich man's table, where there have, perhaps, been smoked salmon and caviar to eat, has been tax-free. Countless other luxury food items are also tax-free.
The schoolkid who likes, and can perhaps afford no more than, a packet of crisps or a chocolate biscuit at what I used to call piece-time, although I think that playtime is a more appropriate term, pays a VAT charge on those items. That child's mother, who might feel a bit peckish in the middle of the morning and, on the weeks when she is not on the Cambridge diet, might enjoy some nuts to help her out, pays value added tax on those nuts. Working men and women in industry who have an energy gap halfway through an afternoon or night shift, will often have recourse to a chocolate biscuit to give them an energy boost; they pay value added tax on that biscuit.
I am sure that hon. Members of all parties regularly visit pensioners' organisations and we all see chocolate digestive biscuits emerging at the pensioners' coffee mornings. Those biscuits attract value added tax also. All of us who, from time to time, take a break and often consume a well-known product, again a chocolate biscuit, pay value added tax on that biscuit.
The tax law on food is not only discriminatory; I would argue that it is in a muddle because some confectionery and some biscuits are taxed while others are not. A digestive biscuit is untaxed, but even if the same digestive biscuit is of the high-fibre type, which, according to the nutritionalists is better for us, if it is coated with chocolate, it is taxed. It cannot be argued that the relevant question is whether chocolate is involved in the product, because a number of other products, with a high chocolate content are tax-free.
I do not want to advertise particular brands, but I cannot think of a generic name for Jaffa cakes, which are
952
untaxed, as are chocolate puddings. One of my favourites is sponge pudding, which is absolutely saturated with chocolate, and that too is untaxed if it comes out of a tin and is eaten at home.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I should like to declare an outside interest in the sugar industry. I am following the hon. Gentleman's points with great attention, because it seems a supreme irony that a tax is put on the confectionery which goes into the lunchboxes of many working men and women, when it is the Government's policy to have no tax on food.
It is interesting to consider whether, in the forthcoming Budget, the Government will suggest that that anomaly should be removed. I recall that, when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mt. Healey) introduced the tax, he mentioned a number of reasons for doing so. One was that he had 400 million reasons for introducing the tax —all of them green ones. He meant that he needed the money.
The Government do not need the money now, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to remove that anomalous tax on part of the food supply in Britain. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne (Mr. Henderson) has done a great service in drawing the matter to the attention of the House.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) for making that important point, especially in relation to packed lunches. I have been a tittle reticent about raising that subject, in case it was thought that I was arguing a particular corner.
I would have thought that the Minister might wish to associate himself with that point. I hear that, because of the austerity of the civil service, beer and sandwiches are being consumed at Treasury meetings, and that it is common for civil servants to bring packed lunches. I am sure that Treasury officials and Ministers would not want to feel that they are being discriminated against.
I shall return to the muddle. The best illustration of the muddle relates to the cookie that contains some chocolate. I always have problems with what have been called sexist comments, but I have watched my wife— and I have done it myself — prepare the ingredients. If chocolate pieces are added to a bowl of sugar and fat and the other ingredients to make cookies that contain chocolate pieces, those cookies clearly would not be taxable. However, if the same ingredients are used to bake cookies with chocolate on the outside, it is arguable the same cookies, with the same contents, will become taxable—and under existing law, they would attract VAT. That is the real muddle.
It is not surprising that there is confusion. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise must have great difficulty in determining which confectionery products should be liable for VAT. I am sure that an unnecessary amount of public expenditure goes into that determination, which should be clarified by Parliament.
Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North on his success in Mr. Speaker's ballot with this important debate.
In my constituency, confectionery is the No. 1 industry. I should like to follow one specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the uses of confectionery. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain why certain types of confectionery are zero-rated in the same way as other foods. Confectionery that is used for sacramental

953
purposes is zero-rated. That was the case in 1973; the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. Earlier today, we heard in the House of the great popularity of a certain type of confectionery to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The Minster for Employment said that 40 Kit-Kats are consumed every second—such is the industry of his Department in doing research.
We have moved away from the times when confectionery was a special item at Christmas and on Mother's day and Valentine's day — which now approaches. I conclude that we have reached the stage of snacking on confectionery, and it is right that the Treasury consider that point and the use of a whole variety of confectionery at times other than purely special occasions.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that point. It reinforces the general argument that I am trying to present.
There is a muddle, and Customs and Excise has a very difficult job to perform. Therefore it is hardly surprising that a number of cases have ended up in court. A recent court case, Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Quaker Oats Limited, related to a chewy bar. Tax liability was determined on the basis of whether the main manufacturing process was baking or another process. That is unacceptable and far too lax. It demonstrates the inherent weakness of the law and the need for change.
We in this country are conscious of the fact that a different attitude is adopted towards the taxation of food. Value added tax is levied on food in some EEC countries, albeit at a reduced rate. I hope that I shall not embarrass the Minister by mentioning that, at the last general election, rumours were rife that, after it was over, VAT would be levied on a wide range of foods. I remember that the Government denied those rumours. I am glad that the Government were able to make their position clear about defending the interests of consumers.
There is, however, an inconsistency, because about 20 per cent. of our food—food that falls into the category of crisps, nuts and confectionery—is subject to tax. The Government accept that those items are food. When the Government prepare their statistics for the family expenditure survey, for product surveys in Economic Trends, for unemployment, for the retail price index or for overseas trade, they include all those items as part of the calculation — and rightly so. However, that shows the inconsistency of the law and the need to address that contradiction.
The Government ought not to say that they cannot comment on that point. It would be difficult for the Government to clarify the position in their Budget proposals, but the position should be established before the House decides what would be practicable. Some may argue that it would be unwise to remove taxation from some of those products, because it would inevitably lead to an increase in consumption that would be damaging to health. I do not accept that view.
Nutritionists do not agree on what is an ideal diet. However, they agree that the diet should be balanced and that it should include a combination of carbohydrates, fats and protein. The Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance has argued convincingly that its products contribute 22 per cent. of the carbohydrates, 15 per cent. of the fats and 7 per cent. of the protein
954
consumed in this country, and that their products amount to about 15 per cent. of the average person's diet. To classify those products for taxation purposes as non-food items—as luxuries that people consume at the weekend in small quantities—flies in the face of both logic and equity.
I hope that the Government will not argue that, although they would like to do something about this, they would encounter difficulties from the European Commission. In the current case that was referred to in an earlier debate, which relates to whether we should be able to zero-rate certain services, the Advocate General for the European Court of Justice cited the instance of zero-rating food as an acceptable application of the rules within Europe. He stated that that acceptability was based on social grounds.
If the Government accept some of the arguments that I and other hon. Members have presented tonight, they cannot maintain that there is a European obstacle. The Government have a strong defence under article 28.2 of the sixth directive, which allows a review of the items that are included as VAT-exempt or VAT-reduced. Under article 17 of the directive, the Commission allows certain products to have the reduced rate introduced on social grounds.
Some of my colleagues did not like the way in which the taxation was originally applied, and I am sure that some Conservative Members felt the same. Notwithstanding the arguments, we have an obligation to the House to start with a clean sheet and examine the whole question of what is and what is not food. We should recognise that an untenable position currently exists.
Of course, revenue implications are inevitable whenever a proposition like this is put to the test in the House. In the short time that I have been a Member of the House, I have noticed that, whenever revenue implications arise, uncomfortable twitching occurs among Treasury Ministers. I do not expect anything different this evening.
However, we are not talking about the loss of all the tax revenue on these foods. I am sure that the Treasury team, understanding the secondary impact of economics, will realise that at present £590 million is raised in taxation on those products, of which about £450 million is raised from confectionery and biscuits. I know that the Minister will be aware that, by changing the law to apply taxation in the way that I and my colleagues are suggesting, he would not lose the full £590 million, or £450 million in the case of confectionery. There is a plus side to the account.
The Minister will understand that there will be benefits from the impact that reducing VAT would have on increasing the demand for products. Three of four major conglomerates which control the industry have given a commitment to control the price should taxation be removed. They know that the Government will gain from other indirect taxes and through the saving of unemployment benefit and social security as a result of increased employment in the industry. The estimate is for an additional 14,000 jobs. I would not suggest that that is a precise figure, but it is a sign of the order of the increase in employment.
Increased taxes and national insurance would accrue to the Treasury through the employment of more people in the industry and increased taxes on profits. I estimate that the net cost to the Treasury might be about £240 million in the case of confectionery and perhaps another £50 million for nuts and crisps.

955
I hope that the Government will accept that the case has been made that there are inconsistencies and that the people who have suffered are in the lower and middle income groups. Packed lunches have suffered badly from the way in which taxation is levied at the moment.
I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this on 26 November 1987. He replied that I should take up the matter with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who first introduced that tax. I do not think that that sort of dismissive reply—which we have not heard from the Minister this evening—is sufficient. We must tackle the whole question of taxation consistency, logic, equity and fairness. The issue is not one of party policy, as is clear from the support that it has received on both sides of the House.
I ask the Minster to agree to early discussions with his colleagues, and particularly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the possibility of assenting to my proposals.
11 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Has the hon. Gentleman agreement for a second intervention?
Mr. Gregory: I sought to raise just one point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already been allowed one long intervention. Has he agreement for another?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley) indicated assent.
Mr. Gregory: I should like to delay the House for a few moments before my hon. Friend responds, mainly on financial matters, on which he is particularly competent.
First, I wish to endorse the comment by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the comparison with other EEC countries. I hope that my hon. Friend will make some response on that. We are trying, under the treaty of Rome, to obtain consensus; we are out of line, particularly with Italy and West Germany, in not zero-rating confectionery, or putting it on at the same rate as other foods.
956
Secondly, some 14,000 new jobs would be created if my hon. Friend sought that approach. Thirdly, may I ask him to counter the comment made, I believe erroneously, in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, if Labour returned to power, a tax would be imposed on sugar? That would be very regressive, and most unfortunate for the industry.
11.1 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on obtaining this debate, and on the eloquence and command of detail with which he has presented his case. I know that he has taken a deep interest in this subject for some time, and has great knowledge of it, as well as concern not just from the constituency angle, but for the wider principles that it raises.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for York (Mr. Gregory) for their contributions. They too have a long-standing interest in the subject and great knowledge of it, and I am grateful to them for making their points today. I am grateful, too, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North for acknowledging that I am constrained by the long-standing convention that Treasury Ministers do not make substantive comments on fiscal matters during the Budget purdah period, and I hope that he will understand that.
I have listened attentively to what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends have said, and I will consider it deeply and discuss it with my colleagues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot go further than that today.
I will add one point: when the hon. Gentleman spoke about what he saw as anomalies, as did my hon. Friends, I felt that the ghost of Sir Gerald Nabarro was hanging over the Chamber, and remembered that he had made a whole career on the subject I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman does not follow suit, as I would he the principal butt. However, I am grateful to him for the points that he has raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Roadworks (Basildon)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road work plans and improvements are due to be carried out on the A127 and A13 within the Basildon constituency over the next two years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A new local road bridge is under construction over the A127 near the Fortune of War roundabout. It will facilitate the removal of this roundabout and junction. Draft orders authorising the closure of the existing side roads should be published this spring. Other improvements including the scope for widening the A127 to dual three-lane are still under consideration.

  The A13 through Basildon is not a national road. Its improvement is the responsibility of Essex county council.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on plans to standardise motor insurance cover within the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Community's effort has been directed to the harmonisation of compulsory requirements that protect the interests of accident victims. We introduced regulations last December complying with directive 84/5/EEC to secure compulsory insurance liability for damage to property. We are not aware of other EC plans to standardise cover. Our view is that it is for individual drivers to decide what cover they require outside compulsory insurance and for insurers to decide what they are prepared to insure.

  M3-M27 Link
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce a date when he expects contracts to be let for the completion of the M3/M27 link.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to let a contract for the southern section of the M3 extension later this year. Timing of the contract for the northern section depends on the outcome of the current public inquiry.

  Railways (Modernisation)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of railway modernisation since the passage of the Transport Act 1962.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Since the British Railways Board was set up in 1963 it has invested over £11·5 billion in today's prices, in renewal and replacement of the railway. It has now embarked on its biggest renewal programme since the modernisation programme in the 1950s and 1960s.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the most recent evidence of the effect on accident levels on roads where speed retarders, including road humps, have been installed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Trials conducted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that speed control humps can significantly reduce injury accidents. New regulations introduced in December 1986 gave increased discretion to local highway authorities as to installation of humps. The Department does not maintain central records of their installation and use.

  I am arranging for relevant leaflets issued by the Department to be placed in the Library of the House.

  M25 (Service Area)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet decided to proceed with the proposal for a motorway service area on M25 at Iver, Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Channon
  I have decided to proceed with our proposal for a service area at Iver. On the information before me I have concluded that a service area here will be well placed to serve needs on a heavily trafficked sector of M25, and that the site proposed is appropriate for that purpose. Preparations and consultations are now being put in hand with a view to application in the late spring for planning clearance and authority to acquire the land.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the results of research into the effect on motor cycling of the Transport Act 1981 and on the effectiveness of a one-day training course for learner motor cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Tomorrow we will be publishing two reports: TRRL research report RR1O6 — "The Effect on Motorcycling of the 1981 Transport Act" and TRRL contractors report CR56—"An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a One-Day Training Programme for Learner Motorcyclists". Copies will be placed in the Library.

  We shall also be announcing the Government's plans for improving motor cycling safety, in the light of these reports and of the consultation exercise in 1986. The proposals should make a significant reduction in the appalling accident rate of motor cylists, particularly amongst the young and inexperienced riders. Our proposals are:

  (a) Replace the present part 1 off-road test of machine handling skills with a compulsory one-day training course, which includes road survival skills, for all new riders of motor cycles and mopeds. Successful completion of the course will be a prerequisite to the issue of provisional motor cycle and moped licences.

  (b) At present the on-road (part 2) L test is conducted by a driving examiner following the candidate on foot. In future the driving examiner will accompany the candidate on another vehicle which will permit a more thorough testing in traffic conditions, making it comparable to the test for learner car drivers.

  (c) Learner riders will be prohibited from carrying pillion passengers.

  527

  (d) A licence category for motor cycles in excess of 400cc will be introduced. Progress to the larger machines will be dependent on a rider having two year's riding experience on a full licence.

  (e) New holders of full driving licences will no longer have automatic entitlement to ride a moped or provisional entitlement to ride a learner motor cycle.

  We shall consult further on the value of reducing the validity of the provisional motorcycle licence from two years to one. If the L test were not taken within that year, a new licence could not be applied for till a year later.

  A copy of the full proposals will be placed in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Zinoviev Letter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what information is available to the Lord Chancellor's Department on the current location of the original intercept of the Zinoviev letter of 15 September 1924; what representations he has received regarding its absence from Public Record Office files; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no information about the location of any document containing the text of the Zinoviev letter as it originally came into the possession of the British Government. A copy of the text is available for public inspection in the Public Record Office. I am not aware of any representations either to myself or to the Lord Chancellor about the absence of the original letter from the Public Record Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Greenham Common (Police Numbers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley as to why police officers on duty outside Greenham Common during the dispersal of a cruise missile convoy on the night of 14–15 January did not all display their numbers, and as to why Officer No. 372 at the Swan roundabout had his number covered in a black substance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that it is force policy that uniformed officers of constable and sergeant rank should display identification numbers at all times. Supervising officers are careful to ensure that the requirement is complied with.

  Any specific complaint about the alleged failure of an officer to display an identification number should be pursued with the chief constable. I understand that police constable 372 was not on duty on the night of 14–15 January.

  Prison Governors Association
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards recognising the Prison Governors Association.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will accord official recognition to the Prison Governors Association.
  528
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are considering the new association's request for recognition in the light of, among other things, the views of other interested parties. Comments from one body are still awaited, but they are expected very shortly, and we shall take a decision as soon as possible.

  Government Data Network
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the police will obtain access to data available via the Government data network.

  Mr. Hurd
  The proposed Government data network, if implemented, would afford Government Departments and other authorised agencies a secure and cost-effective facility for transmitting data to other locations within the same organisation or, where authorised, to other users of the network. There will be safeguards to prevent unauthorised access by one user to the data of other users.

  I am considering whether the network would be suitable for use by the police national computer (PNC) which my Department operates on behalf of police forces. Should it be suitable, the police service would have access only to police data and PNC users would be subject to the same safeguards against unauthorised access as apply to all other users.

  Leicestershire (Police Strength)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief constable of Leicestershire concerning a request for additional officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last received an application by the Leicestershire police authority for an increase in the authorised police establishment of the Leicestershire constabulary; what was the request; and what was his response thereto.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following a review of the force by the chief constable, the Leicestershire police authority wrote on 15 January seeking approval for an increase in the force establishment of 45 posts in 1988–89, 33 posts in 1989–90 and 13 posts in 1990–91.

  The police authority has been informed that its application will be considered, in the light of advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, along with applications which have been received from other authorities for increases in establishment in 1988–89.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the procedures that will have to be followed by anyone seeking to apply for a licence to run a community radio station.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 26 January at column 132.

  Immigration (Heathrow)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers were on duty and interviewing entrants to the United Kingdom at
  529
  terminal 4 Heathrow airport between 9 am and 10 am on Monday 11 January; and what was the estimated average waiting time for entrants prior to interview.

  Mr. Renton
  Fourteen immigration officers were on duty on the inward immigration control at Heathrow terminal 4 between 0900 and 1000 on 11 January. Some passengers had to wait up to 45 minutes for examination, which is exceptional for the time of year. A major contributory factor was the particularly heavy concentration of flights that morning, a number of which had been delayed by adverse weather conditions.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) burglaries, and (b) street attacks there were in 1985 and 1986; what is the estimated figure for 1987; and if he will make a statement about current proposals to deal with these crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  Numbers of offences of burglary and robbery recorded by the police in 1985, 1986, and the first three quarters of 1987 were published in a "Home Office Statistical Bulletin" issue number 38/87 in December 1987, copies of which are in the Library. Figures for the whole of 1987 are not yet available.

  We shall continue to encourage and support a coordinated approach to crime prevention at national and local level disseminating advice on how to reduce opportunities for these and other crimes to occur. We shall also continue to make provision for a strong and efficient police service.

DEFENCE

  Rainfall Levels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when rainfall figures were available between 2 and 7 May 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A limited amount of raw raingauge data reaches the Meteorological Office within a few hours of the rain falling, but this represents only some 3 per cent. of the total network coverage providing records. The first maps of estimated surface rainfall for the period in question, based on radar data, were available during May 1986. Maps of daily rainfall, based on partly quality controlled data from some 4,000 sites equipped with raingauges, began to be supplied by the Meteorological Office in late July 1986.

ENVIRONMENT

  Job Creation (Docklands)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of jobs created in the London Docklands development corporation area since 1981 has gone to those resident in the docklands boroughs before 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  No up-to-date information is available. A survey commissioned by LDDC in 1985 showed that about 30 per cent. of jobs in firms attracted to the corporation's area up to that date were taken by persons who were residents of the three docklands boroughs. A new survey was conducted in 1987 and its results will be published soon.

  Smoke Detectors
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will exempt expenditure by local authorities on the installation of smoke detectors in council property from grant penalty under the rate support grant provisions.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has made for altering the building regulations in relation to the conservation of energy in domestic, commercial and industrial buildings; when he published his proposals; and when he intends to bring his proposed changes to the House.

  Mr. Trippier
  A consultation letter on stage 2 of the review of the building regulations was issued on 15 December 1986. This included a number of general proposals relating to the form of the legal requirements in part L (conservation of fuel and power) and to guidance which might be given on ways of meeting those requirements. More detailed proposals are now being developed in the light of comments received, and I intend to issue a further consultation document on part L later this year. I hope that the necessary amendments to this part of the regulations can be laid before Parliament by the end of the year.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in England are equipped for gipsies, under the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  All grant-aided local authority gipsy sites in England are provided with basic facilities as recommended in annex A to Department of the Environment circular 11/79 and conform with the standards laid down in the Department's gipsy sites design guide.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in England have already complied with the sections of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 relating to gipsies and have subsequently been granted the status of designated areas under the Act, or are in the process of seeking such designation.

  Mrs. Roe
  A total of 22 London boroughs, 10 former county boroughs, five entire counties and 58 individual districts have been designated under the 1968 Act. These figures take account of one designation order which has been made but will not come into force until February. Eight applications for designation are at present before my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which county councils in England have yet to establish permanent caravan sites for gipsies under the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mrs. Roe
  All county councils in England except the Isle of Wight have established at least one permanent caravan site for gipsies.

  Water (Nitrate Levels)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 742, he will specify the areas in which derogations have been given in relation to nitrate levels in public water supplies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The areas are specified in the table:

  NITRATE DEROGATIONS

  Water authority area and area of supply

  ANGLIAN

  Cambridge Water Co.

  Parts of Huntingdon and South Cambridgeshire

  Districts

  Anglian Water Authority

  Dersingham and Snettisham

  Docking

  Heacham and Hunstanton

  Moulton and Kennet

  Wisbech

  Habough—part of Lincolnshire

  Aswarby—Saltersford—part of Lincolnshire

  Scunthorpe

  Binbrook—part of Lincolnshire

  Bully Hill—Barnoldby—part of Lincolnshire

  Bully Hill—Otby—part of Lincolnshire

  Clay Hill—Drove Lane, Sleaford

  Sleaford

  Potterhanworth—part of Lincolnshire Saltersford

  Waneham Bridge—Saltersford

  Bucklesham—part of Ipswich

  Ely and Littleport

  Habrough—Covenham, part of Cleethorpes

  Bowthorpe, part of Norwich

  Heigham—Thorpe part of Norwich

  Otby

  Otby—Waddingham

  SEVERN-TRENT

  Severn-Trent Water Authority

  Parts of Leamington, Kenilworth, Warwick and

  Stratford DC

  Parts of Rutland DC

  Parts of South Derbyshire DC

  Parts of Newark and Ashfield DC

  Part of Stourbridge, Dudley MBC (Coalbournbrook source)

  Part of Wychavon DC area

  Part of Stourbridge, Dudley MBC (Millmeadow source)

  Parts of Wychavon DC

  Malvern Hills and Wyre Forest DC

  Parts of Wrekin DC (Lilleshall source)

  Parts of Worksop, Bassetlaw DC

  Parts of Worksop and Mansfield Woodhouse

  Part of South Shropshire DC

  Part of Wrekin DC (Puleston Bridge source)

  Parts of Bridgnorth and Wrekin DC (Shifnal source)

  Bromley Lane area of Dudley MBC

  Parts of Newark DC (Farnsfield source)

  Parts of Nottingham City Council area primarily

  Hucknall

  SOUTH STAFFS WATERWORKS COMPANY

  Parts of Lichfield DC Sutton Coldfield area, North

  Warwickshire CC and Walsale Metropolitan area

  Parts of Kingswinford, Pensnett and Brierley Hill

  Dudley Metropolitan area

  Parts of Lichfield and Whittington, Lichfield DC

  South West

  St. Marys Island

  THAMES

  Lee Valley Water Co.

  Part of Luton

  532
  YORKSHIRE

  Area north east of Ripon North Yorkshire

  PSA (Cost Limit)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has plans to increase the Property Services Agency's civil running cost limit during the current financial year.

  Mr. Chope
  Subject to the approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the PSA's civil running cost limit on Class XX Vote 19 will be increased by £4·976 million from £141·772 million to £146·748 million, due to an underprovision for work undertaken by the agency's directly employed industrial labour force. This is offset by a reduction in non-running cost expenditure within the cash limit, which remains unchanged.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the undertakings given at columns 1109–1110 in the Official Report of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill 1985 by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), on rent levels, management, maintenance and access by Londoners in respect of the Greater London council's seaside and country homes, still apply.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: The proposed terms for disposal will enable the new landlord to set reasonable levels of rent and of management and maintenance expenditure. The only long-term undertaking given concerned access by Londoners. New lettings will continue to be made exclusively to elderly Londoners by means of reserved nomination rights exercised through the London area mobility scheme.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of fraud, corruption or theft have been reported in the Property Services Agency in respect of consultant staff who have been, or are, working in district works offices; what action his Department has taken; and whether any cases of fraud, corruption or theft involving consultant staff have been reported to the police.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: None. One case of procedural irregularity resulted in the resignation of a consultant's employee, but there was no obvious evidence of fraud, theft or corruption involved.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to release the report by Deloitte Haskins and Sells on the operation of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has received on the statement
  533
  of 19 January by the European Economic Community Environment Commissioner to the European Parliament on the transnuclear waste transport cover-up and bribery incident in the European Economic Community, particularly in terms of its implications for the implementation of EURATOM safety and safeguard arrangements within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am placing a copy of the 19 January statement by Commissioner Stanley Clinton Davis in the Library of the House. On 19 January Commissioner Mosar also told the European Parliament that he had no evidence as yet of diversion of fissile material from Mol for unlawful use. The International Atomic Energy Agency has stated it was satisfied that there had been no unauthorised diversion of nuclear material in significant quantities. The deputy director general of the IAEA has also said he was confident that Euratom's standards were the highest possible.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply of 15 January,Official Report, column 421, he will set out the reasons why the publication of the yearly plutonium figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information is not available in this form for previous years and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest financial targets for the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest financial target agreed for the Central Electricity Generating Board is to earn a return on average net assets on a current cost accounting basis of 3·75 per cent. in 1988–89 and 4·75 per cent. in 1989–90.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits and running cost limit for 1987–88.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2, has been reduced by £1 million to £250·272 to offset expenditure in connection with the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. Provision for this new expenditure was voted in a Winter Supplement Estimate for class VI, vote 7.

  In addition, the cash limit for class VI, vote 3, has been reduced by £0·05 million to £22·823 million. This change arises from the transfer of £0·05 million to the Department of Employment (class VII, vote 4) as a special contribution towards increased costs in 1987–88 associated with the recruitment and staffing of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. My Department's running cost limit has also been reduced by a similar amount to £26·301 million.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Educational Maintenance Awards
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost, at 1986–87 prices, of introducing educational maintenance awards for 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education in schools and colleges at(a) the same rates as supplementary benefit for young people and (b) the same rates as training allowances paid to 16 and 17-year-olds on YTS.

  Mr. Dunn
  After deducting child benefit and existing maintenance payments from LEAs, the annual cost of paying maintenance allowances to all 16 and 17-year-olds currently in full-time education in schools and colleges is estimated to be as follows:

  £ million

  (a) If the allowances are paid at the same rate as supplementary benefit

  300

  (b) If the allowances are paid at the same rate as YTS allowances

  650

  Notes:

  1. The figure at (a) is based on the 1986–87 supplementary benefit level of £18·40 for 16 and 17-year-olds living at home with their parents, less child benefit at the 1986–87 rate of £7·10 per week. If child benefit is not deducted the figure would increase by about £200 million to £500 million.

  2. The figure for (b) is based on the 1986–87 YTS allowances of £27·30 per week for 16-year-olds and £35 per week for 17-year-olds, less child benefit at the 1986–87 rate of £7·10 per week. If child benefit is not deducted the figure would increase by about £200 million to £850 million.

  3. Both figures assume no change in the estimated 1985–86 level of local authority spending on maintenance payments For 16 and 17-year-olds, which has been converted to 1986–87 prices for the present purpose.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many secondary schools in Northumberland have expressed an interest to his Department in the suggestion that they will be able to opt out of local government control.

  Mr. Dunn
  All individual schools which have approached the Department have done so on the basis that their interest will be treated in confidence.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many nursery school places are currently available in Northumberland.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on the total number of places available in nursery schools is not collected centrally. The number of pupils attending maintained nursery schools in Northumberland in January 1987 was 44 full-time and 90 part-time. In addition, 89 full-time and 1,593 part-time pupils attended nursery classes in primary schools in the authority.

  Further Education Colleges (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to further education colleges of the Inner London education
  535
  authority which provide a specialist service for Greater London, the trade, profession or course with which they are associated, and the number of day and evening pupils attending each one.

  Mr. Jackson
  In common with colleges of further education in other parts of the country, many colleges maintained by the ILEA provide courses meeting the needs of students and employers from an area rather wider than that of the local education authority. Detailed information on all such courses could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the numbers of (i) primary and nursery pupils, (ii) secondary school pupils, (iii) special school pupils, (iv) persons in attendance at day colleges, and (v) persons in attendance at evening classes, which are the responsibility of the Inner London education authority, for each local authority in the Inner London education authority area.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information for areas within authorities is not collected centrally. ILEA publishes statistics by division within the authority.

WALES

  Valleys Development Initiative
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his proposed valleys development initiative, and the sums required for that initiative, will be additional to the levels of expenditure announced in Cm. 288—I and II.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The planned levels of expenditure indicated in "The Government's Expenditure Plans for 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288 — I and II) include provision for my proposals to introduce a programme to revitalise the south Wales valleys. The planned level of expenditure in years beyond 1988–89 is subject to review in the context of future public expenditure rounds.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which county councils have yet to establish permanent caravan sites for gipsies under the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Grist
  Only West Glamorgan county council has not yet established a permanent caravan site for gipsies, and it is in the process of providing one at Llansamlet, Swansea.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales have already complied with the sections of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 relating to gipsies and have been granted the status of designated areas under the Act, or are in the process of seeking designation.

  Mr. Grist
  No area in Wales has been designated. Applications for designation have been made in respect of Aberconwy, Arfon, Dinefwr, Llanelli, Montgomery, Preseli and Ynys Môn districts.
  536
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales are equipped for gipsies under the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  All counties in Wales except West Glamorgan have at least one official site. All local authority gipsy sites in Wales are provided with basic facilities as recommended in annex A to Welsh Office circular 11/79 and conform with the standards laid down in the Welsh Office gipsy sites design guide.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bophuthatswana Tuberculosis Association
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to the small projects scheme of contributions made to the Bophuthatswana Tuberculosis Association; and for what purpose the funds have been used.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  An allocation of £7,000 has been approved for the association, which is a non-governmental organisation, for the provision of transport and audiovisual equipment. This will enable the association's health educationist to give talks and demonstrations within Bophuthatswana on tuberculosis and other health-related subjects. £6,119 has been spent so far.

THE ARTS

  Office of Arts and Libraries
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any changes to announce in the running cost limit of the Office of Arts and Libraries and in the cash limits of the Votes for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limits for the following votes will be increased by the amounts indicated:

  Vote

  Current cash limit £

  Increase £

  Revised cash limit £

  Class XII Vote 10

  17,858,000

  100,000

  17,958,000

  Class XIII Vote 10

  176,126,000

  8,169,000

  184,295,000

  Class XIII Vote 12

  1,267,000

  60,000

  1,327,000

  Of these increases, £7,429,000 will be charged to the Reserve, and £900,000 will be offset by a cash limit reduction on class XVII, vote 5. There will therefore be no increase in the planned total of public expenditure.

  The additions sought are:
  £100,000 on class XII, vote 10, to meet the costs of repairing storm damage to the roof of the British museum (natural history);
  £900,000 on class XII, vote 10, to facilitate the purchase of the Sherman theatre, Cardiff, by the Welsh Arts Council;
  £7,329,000 on class XIII, vote 10, for payment to Inland Revenue in respect of tax forgone on three major works of art accepted by the nation in lieu of tax;
  £60,000 on class XIII, vote 12, to meet the additional costs of the Office of Arts and Libraries in respect of the British Library St. Pancras team. This increase is offset by a corresponding saving on the arts marketing scheme (vote 10). The Office of Arts and Libraries running costs limit will increase by £25,000, from £1,268,000 to £1,293,000.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to introduce training on equal opportunities for women into the top management course.

  Mr. Luce
  The top management programme includes a number of sessions on social change and on management issues. In these sessions questions of equal opportunity are often discussed. It is planned to continue to include these sessions in future programmes.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1987–88 cash limit for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) will be increased by £1,060,000 from £33,603,000 to £34,663,000. The increase is required to disburse to Civil Service welfare organisations some of the savings to the Exchequer arising from the underpayment of public service pensions as a result of the miscalculation of retail prices index increases; and to clear outstanding debit balances in respect of advance payments made to the Property Services Agency (PSA) since 1983–84. The decision to make additional payments to suitable charities was announced to the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 18 December 1987. Since the payments will be funded from the Reserve, they will not increase the planned total of public expenditure. The PSA payments were made in previous years and there is no call on the Reserve.

PRIME MINISTER

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to make an official visit to Thamesmead.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will meet Dr. Najib, President of Afghanistan, to discuss his Government's policies for the promotion of peace and reconciliation in that country; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to pay an official visit to Menwith Hill.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  European Community (Budgetary Control)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the position she will take at the European Council meeting on additional resources for the EEC in the light of the recent proposals for budgetary control submitted to the Council by the EEC Commission.
  538
  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the statement I made on Tuesday 8 December, at columns 167–8, on the outcome of the Copenhagen European Council.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Chancellor Kohl. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies Act 1986
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed the review of schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The review of schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act 1986, which I announced on 2 October last, had two purposes. The first was to examine whether schedule 8 could be recast so that it proscribed particular activities within certain broadly specified powers instead of banning everything except narrowly specified powers. We believe that this can be done and I shall be bringing the necessary order before the House in due course.

  The review also considered societies' request, through the Building Societies Association, for a substantial extension of their powers. The Government recognise that the gradual step-by-step extension of powers previously envisaged would not be appropriate. Societies need to know the broad scope of their powers for some years ahead in order to make sensible long-term commercial plans. Different societies will want to exercise different powers, and each individual society will probably want 10 diversify into only a small number of new areas. The Government therefore propose a wide-ranging extension of powers, while ensuring through supervision of business plans by the Building Societies Commission within overall limits on non-traditional assets that individual societies exploit their new powers at a prudent pace.

  The mainstream business of societies is, and must remain, that of raising funds from the public for lending on house purchase. But we believe that it is right that societies should be allowed to undertake activities which either complement their mainstream business or which will enable them to compete more effectively by providing the wider range of financial services which customers expect of financial institutions. Societies will, as at present,

  539
  continue to provide services primarily to the personal sector rather than to companies. But I have decided that societies should also be allowed to:

  (a) take an equity stake in both life and general insurance companies;

  (b) undertake fund management including management of unit trusts generally (rather than just for the provision of pensions, as at present);

  (c) take an equity stake in stockbrokers;

  (d) offer a wider range of banking and housing-related services than hitherto.

  There will be some limitations on these new powers. It would not be appropriate for societies to become involved as stockbrokers in market-making nor would it be desirable for societies to become fully exposed to the risks inherent in general insurance business. The draft orders which I will bring before the House in due course will set out the proposed restrictions to these powers.

  Many of these new activities are supervised under either the Insurance Companies Act 1982 or the Financial Services Act 1986. These arrangements will continue and appropriate arrangements to co-ordinate supervision will also be put in place.

  I also propose two other changes under the Act.

  First, societies have represented that the limit on unsecured lending to individuals, currently £5,000, is too low. This limit covers personal loans for such items as furnishings as well as car loans and credit card limits. The limit will be increased to £10,000. This will give societies greater scope to compete for retail customers. The Building Societies Commission will ensure that societies continue to have adequate credit assessment and exposure monitoring systems.

  The second change concerns asset limits. As societies develop into new activities already permitted under the Act, plus those opened up following this review, they will wish gradually to increase the proportion of their assets which are not residential mortgages. I propose therefore to bring forward an order shortly which will provide for a progressive increase in the limits on non-traditional assets. This will enable societies to plan for expansion into non-traditional activities at a measured pace. The order will provide for an increase in the class 2 and 3 limits to 17½ per cent. and 74½per cent. respectively in January 1990, to 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively in January 1991 and a further increase to the maximum extent possible within the primary legislation–25 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively—in January 1993.

  The orders necessary to implement these changes will take time to prepare, in consultation with the Building Societies Association. I hope to be able to lay the draft orders before the House before Easter. I recognise that some societies are anxious that they should be able to adopt their new powers in their spring AGMs. We will proceed with all the speed that we can and provide societies with as much information as possible as drafting proceeds. But early adoption may not be possible. It will be important to ensure that the complex secondary legislation is carefully and correctly drafted.

  The proposals are a substantial step forward in building society development. They will give societies the freedom to develop and compete across a wide range of financial services business.

  Running Costs Limit
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plan to change the 1987–88 running costs limit for the Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the departmental running costs limit for the Government Actuary's Department will be increased by £26,000 from £2,021,000 to £2,047,000 to provide for new work on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. There is no change in the cash limit, and no claim on the Reserve. This increase will be offset by a reduction in the running costs of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there will be any changes to the 1987–88 running costs limit for Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Brooke
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the 1987–88 running costs limit for Her Majesty's Treasury will be decreased by £200,000, from £66,364,000 to £66,164,000. This decrease applies to expenditure by the central computer and telecommunications agency under class XIX, vote 13. It is mainly due to staff shortages, partly offset by higher pay costs; and to savings in equipment maintenance, stemming largely from delays in the formal acceptance of the agency's office automation system.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any further change to the Central Office of Information's cash limit for 1987–88.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £9,468,000 from £141,032,000 to £150,500,000. The increase will be offset by reimbursements by the clients of the Central Office of Information and will not therefore add to the planning total of public expenditure. There will be a decrease of £1,164,000 in the Central Office of Information running costs, from £20,164,000 to £19,000,000, following a reduction in staff numbers.

  Women (Equal Opportunities)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade 6 level and above working outside headquarters have received equal training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Brooke
  All my Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities— for all groups, not just for women. None of the 12 staff at grade 6 and above working outside London has received training solely dedicated to equal opportunities for women.

  Customs Officers (Heathrow)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officers were on duty in the goods to be declared channel at terminal 4 Heathrow airport on
  541
  Monday 11 January between 9 am and 10 am; and what was the estimated waiting time for passengers prior to interview.

  Mr. Lilley
  Five customs officers were on duty in the red channel.

  It is not possible to estimate the waiting time but Customs' records show that passenger traffic at that time was well in excess of the normal average throughput.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong Civil Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the request from the unions concerned for the establishment of an independent committee of inquiry into pay in the Hong Kong Civil Service.

  Mr. Eggar
  A request has been made by the staff side of the Senior Civil Service Council that an independent committee of inquiry be set up to consider a pay level survey carried out in 1986. The Governor has declined the request as no specific proposals arising from the survey have been made by the Hong Kong Government. Any such proposals would be the subject of consultation in the Council.

  Ms. Rocio Reyes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Chilean Government concerning the arrest and detention of Rocio Reyes, a former United Kingdom resident, and reports from Amnesty International of threats to Ms. Reyes.

  Mr. Eggar
  Senorita Reyes was released without charge on 12 September 1987 after nine days in detention. Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago has remained in touch with her. Neither the embassy nor, I understand, Amnesty International is aware of threats made against Senorita Reyes since her release.

  Chilean Exiles
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any reassessment of the ability of Chilean exiles in the United Kingdom to return home safely in the light of the detention of Luis Tricot and Rocio Reyes and the subsequent alleged torture of Señor Tricot.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware of the practical difficulties which Chilean exiles may face on return from the United Kingdom to their own country. Her Majesty's ambassador remains in touch with returnees, and I understand that this is welcomed. But, as far as I am aware, returnees are not being singled out for harassment. The embassy has made representations on behalf of the Irish Government about Senor Tricot's case.

  Aboriginal Australians
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Australia on(a) the
  542
  alleged violations of the human rights of aboriginal Australians and (b) the denial of land rights for aboriginal Australians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes to the Foreign and Commonwealth cash limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class II, vote 4 (British Council), will be increased by £1,066,000 from £55,658,000 to £56,724,000 to take account of unavoidable increased costs overseas. The increase will be charged to the Reserve.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 1 (Overseas Representation), will be decreased by £5 million from £427,247,000 to £422,247,000 due to reductions in assumed costs overseas. This will include a reduction in the running costs limit of £1,500,000 from £396,783,000 to £395,283,000. The cash limit for class II, vote 3 (BBC: External Broadcasting and Monitoring), will be reduced by £4,347,000 from £116,500,000 to £112,153,000 to take account of the over-issue of the grant-in-aid in the previous financial year.

  Irish Republic (Young Persons)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to obtain from the Irish Republic an estimate of the number of young people between the ages of 18 and 30 years who are citizens of the Republic and who have come to live in Great Britain in the last five years; and if he will ask the Government of the Irish Republic to make a contribution towards their welfare and accommodation if they are unemployed or homeless.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. Given the freedom of movement between the two countries, neither the Irish nor the United Kingdom Government are in a position to give accurate estimates. Social assistance benefits are available to all persons in need who are lawfully present in Great Britain, without discrimination on grounds of nationality. The Republic of Ireland makes its social assistance benefits available to United Kingdom nationals on the same terms. A system of cross-accounting would not be practical or appropriate in this context.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the success rate of the restart programme is measured.

  Mr. Lee
  The main aim of the restart programme is to contact all long-term unemployed people and to offer them positive help back to work. The success of the programme is measured principally by reference to the number of long-term unemployed people contacted, the number interviewed, and the percentage of those interviewed who are offered positive help.
  543
  So far in 1987–88 up to the end of November, some 1·8 million people have been contacted. About 1·5 million have been interviewed and 88 per cent. of those were offered positive help.

  Construction Industry (Skill Shortages)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the construction industry training board to discuss skills shortages in the industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers have regular meetings with all chairmen of industry training boards to discuss various issues. I last met the construction board chairman in December to discuss the board's action plan on skill shortages, and I expect to meet him again in the spring.

  Job Clubs
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to expand the number of job clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The planning assumption in the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 –1990–91" is that the programme will expand to 1,500 job clubs by the end of 1988–89.

  British Travel Centre
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have now visited the British Travel Centre since it was officially opened.

  Mr. Lee
  There have been more than 1·1 million visitors to the British Travel Centre since it was officially opened by the Prime Minister on 13 June 1986.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created over the past 12 months in the northern region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the 12 months to September 1987, the net increase in employment in the northern region is estimated to have been 12,000. This figure covers both employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage increase in jobs created in the northern region since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. Between September 1979 and September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian employed labour force in the northern region showed a net decrease of 9 per cent. The figure is unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations.

  The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self employed.

  Restart (Benefit Claimants)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been refused unemployment benefit as a result of their refusal to take up an offer made to them following a restart interview.

  Mr. Lee
  Any refusal of benefit subsequent to a restart interview follows not from the interview itself but from the 544
  decision of an independent adjudication officer operating under long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments.

  Conference Centres
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made by British conference centres in marketing facilities in Britain to international associations and the corporate sector.

  Mr. Lee
  Good progress is being made in this area through the auspices of the British Conference and Exhibition Centres Export Council, which is supported by the British tourist authority. Britain now has a 10 per cent. share of the market for international conferences and association meetings, and in 1986, conferences earned a record £109 million from overseas visitors.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the implementation of the winding-up of the job release scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis),Official Report, 4 November at column 726. In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the closure on 3 November and notices were placed in various national newspapers on 6 November giving details of the closure and the procedures for submitting applications.

  YTS Trainees
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of YTS trainees going into work, or further education and training.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest results from the Manpower Services Commission's regular follow-up survey show that, of those young people who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and July 1987 74 per cent. were in work, further education or training at the time of the surveys.

  MSC Training Schemes
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on Manpower Services Commission training schemes as of January; and how many have been on such schemes since their inception.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. At 31 December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 417,500 young people in training on YTS and 24,400 people on the new job training scheme. Figures for the numbers in training on any given date are not available for other adult training schemes. Since 1979, the earliest date for which figures are readily available about 3,413,000 starts have been recorded on MSC training schemes.

  Short-Break Holidays
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much revenue was earned by short-break holidays in England in 1987.
  545
  Mr. Lee
  No estimate is available for the amount earnt by all short break holidays in England in 1987. However, spending on one to three night holidays taken by British residents in England in the first 10 months of 1987 is estimated to be £800 million.

  Visitors
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of Britain's visitors came from Europe in 1987; what information he has as to how this figure compares with other European countries; and what is being done to ensure a good spread of markets.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures are not yet available for the number of visitors to Britain from Europe for the whole of 1987. During the first 10 months of 1987, however, 59 per cent. of visitors to the UK were European residents. Comparative data for other European countries are not yet available.

  The British tourist authority recognises the importance of encouraging visitors from a wide spectrum of markets. Through its overseas offices, and joint marketing initiatives with the trade. It seeks to promote tourism to Britain from all destinations.

  Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average spending per day by United States visitors to Britain in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  An estimate of the average spending per day by United States visitors to Britain is not yet available for the whole of 1987. However, during the first two quarters of 1987. January to June, the average amount spent per day by United States visitors to the UK was £56.

  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of people under 25 years who visited Britain in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the number of people under 25 years who visited Britain is only produced on an annual basis and is not yet available for 1987. However, in 1986 the number of visits to the United Kingdom by people under 25 was 3·7 million.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 24,446,000 people in the employed labour force in Great Britain. This represents an increase of 1,449,000 since March 1983. The figures are adjusted for the effects of seasonal variations. The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the ratio of persons in employment to persons unemployed in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the total employed labour force, and the number of unemployed claimants (excluding school leavers) in the United Kingdom for June of each year since 1983, and also the ratio of employed labour 546
  force to unemployed claimants. All figures are seasonally adjusted.

  Employed Labour Force Thousands

  Unemployed Claimants Thousands

  Ratio

  June 1983

  23,594·9

  2,884·2

  8·2:1

  June 1984

  24,049·4

  2,978·6

  8·1:1

  June 1985

  24,437·9

  3,109·3

  7·9:1

  June 1986

  24,537·3

  3,212·5

  7·6:1

  June 1987

  24,907·5

  2,925·2

  8·5:1

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider maintaining a record of the employment destination of all those who leave Manpower Services Commission schemes or who leave the unemployment register.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission follows up people leaving the programmes it administers, in order to measure how effective they are in helping people. The information collected includes the destination of leavers. The way in which this information is collected varies from programme to programme and can be on a sample basis.

  More than 400,000 people currently leave the unemployment register in any month. Although records of individual destinations are not maintained, information on the characteristics of the vacancies filled through jobcentres are available. Additionally there have been recent ad hoc surveys which will provide information on amongst other matters the destination of specific groups of unemployed people.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,695,810.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Lambeth have been unemployed for more than a year.

  Mr. Lee
  On 8 October 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the London borough of Lambeth who had been unemployed for more than one year was 10,523.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in Waveney over the past 12 months; and what has been the comparable position in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Waveney local authority area was 5,011, a fall of 1,205 since December 1986. The comparable figure for the United Kingdom as a whole was 2,695,810, a fall of 533,357.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people unemployed in the Chelmsford local authority area in December 1987 and December 1986.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Chelmsford local authority area was 2,946. The corresponding figure for December 1986 was 3,788.
  547
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had on employment trends with his counterparts in the EEC member states.

  Mr. Cope
  Since the adoption by the Community of the action programme on employment growth in December 1986, after an initiative by the United Kingdom with Italy and Ireland, we have sought to keep the subject of employment growth high on the agenda of business for the EC Council of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers. The Council has considered a report on the action programme, and has pursued as a priority the issue of long-term unemployment. We frequently seek to promote discussion of issues relating to employment growth with the European Commission and other member states.

  Employees in Employement

  Males

  Females

  Full time

  Part time

  All

  Full lime

  Part time

  All

  Total employees

  Wales

  June 1979

  n/a

  n/a

  618

  250

  165

  415

  1,033

  September 19841

  474

  29

  504

  220

  163

  383

  886

  September 19872

  n/a

  n/a

  486

  210

  179

  389

  875

  Great Britain

  June 1979

  n/a

  n/a

  13,183

  5,585

  3,870

  9,455

  22,638

  September 19841

  10,928

  771

  11,699

  5,289

  3,858

  9,147

  20,846

  September 198722

  10,935

  881

  11,816

  5,467

  4,209

  9,676

  21,492

  United Kingdom

  June 1979

  n/a

  n/a

  13,487

  5,816

  3,870

  9,686

  23,173

  September 19841

  11,173

  797

  11,970

  5,437

  3,939

  9,376

  21,346

  September 19872

  n/a

  n/a

  12,073

  5,696

  4,209

  9,905

  21,978

  1 Census of employment.

  2 Latest available.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which regions are showing the greatest falls in unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The unemployment rate fell in all regions over the last 12 months. With the largest falls being in the west midlands, Wales, north-west and the north. In the last 18 months since June 1986 the falls have also been largest in these regions.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures taken to reduce unemployment in the 18 to 25-year-age group.

  Mr. Lee
  Those in the 18-to-25-year-age group are already benefiting from the growth in the economy which has produced more than 1·4 million new jobs since March 1983. In addition, they can take advantage of the wide range of employment and training measures we have developed to help unemployed people back into employment. Unemployment among those aged 18 to 25 fell by 175,166 in the year to October 1987. Unemployment amongst the under 25s is now at the lowest level for over five years.

  We are now moving towards meeting our guarantee to everyone in this age group who has been unemployed for between six and 12 months of the place on the job training scheme or on the enterprise allowance scheme or in a jobclub.
  548
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and how many women were in full-time employment in June 1979 and in December 1987 in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of the numbers of full-time and part-time male employees in employment for the dates and areas specified are available only from the September 1984 census of employment. Regional estimates of the numbers of self-employed people do not separately identify full-time and part-time employment. The available comparable information is given in the table.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage increase in the number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  Between 10 May 1979 and 10 December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, excluding school leavers and adjusted for discontinuities and seasonality, increased by 126.9 per cent.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he intends to take to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no proposals to put forward at this time. I shall be reviewing the position in the light of the Report by the National Audit Office on employment assistance to disabled adults and the report by the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People which reviewed the principles underlying employment provisions.

  In the meantime my Department and the Manpower Services Commission will continue to promote vigorously employment opportunities for people with disabilities, both through existing special schemes as well as the full range of employment and training programmes.
  549
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recognition he will give to the needs of disabled people in the forthcoming White Paper on adult training.

  Mr. Fowler
  The forthcoming White Paper on unemployment and training will set out the Government's decisions about the new training programme for unemployed adults. The Government recognise that disabled people have particular needs and these will be fully recognised in the new programme.

  YTS
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the working of YTS.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  On 31 December 1987 there were some 417,000 young people receiving high-quality training on YTS schemes. Of those young people leaving the schemes between April 1986 and July 1987, around 74 per cent. went into employment, further education or training. In addition, around 1,900 organisations have achieved full approved training organisation status demonstrating their commitment to provide high-quality programmes.

  The YTS is now firmly established as a standard method of recruitment and training for many employers, and the Government hope that more and more companies will recognise the substantial benefits YTS can offer.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on YTS schemes; and how many of them are entitled to travel expenses.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of December 1987 there were some 417,500 young people in training on YTS, of whom nine out of 10 are non-employed. All non-employed YTS trainees are entitled to be reimbursed the amount by which their essential weekly training-related travel costs exceed £3. If required to live away from home for the purpose of YTS training, such trainees are also entitled to assistance with the costs of travel between home and training location.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently undertaking training on the YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are currently on the YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of December 1987 there were some 417,500 young people in training on YTS.

  This represents an impressive achievement in convincing young people of the value of training. It also represents significant progress towards our objective that all young people under 18 years of age should have the opportunity either to continue in full-time education or of entering a period of work experience combined with work-related training and education.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what his estimate is of the number of YTS 550
  places in Wales in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 that will arise from the proposed Manpower Services Commission corporate plan for Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan for Wales, which gives estimated expenditure up to 1989–90, shows £68·7 million for YTS in 1988–89 and £;68·9 million for 1989–90. The current estimate is that 29,354 places will be available for 1988–89. The number of places for 1989–90 will be estimated around the end of this year.

  Strikes
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in September 1987; and what was the comparable figure in September 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in September 1987 is provisionally estimated as 48,000. This compares with 878,000 working days lost in September 1978.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost by strikes in 1987; how this compares with 1978; and if he w ill make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1987 is not yet available. In the 12-month period to November 1987, 3,494,000 working days were provisionally estimated to have been lost. This compares with 9,405,000 working days lost in 1978.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet representatives of British chambers of commerce to discuss skill shortages.

  Mr. Cope
  I often meet representatives of British chambers of commerce and discuss issues including the demand for and supply of skills, and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on skill shortages in(a) the south and (b) the north.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received a number of letters and approaches from individuals and organisations, from many areas of the country, who are interested in various aspects of skills supply and demand. It is not possible to provide a breakdown on the geographical basis requested.

  Job Training Scheme (Child Care)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to make a decision on the expansion of job training scheme child care payments under the pilot scheme to all job training scheme managing agents.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the take-up of the job training scheme child care payment system.

  Mr. Cope
  Decisions will be taken when the present pilot scheme comes to an end later this month.
  551
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will expand the payment for child care facilities for single parents on job training schemes to two-parent families where both are in employment.

  Mr. Cope
  No. Child care payments are being made by the MSC only to unemployed single parents who join the new job training scheme in 10 areas where this arrangement is being piloted. Parents are normally responsible for making their own child care arrangements.

  Non-statutory Training Boards
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the contribution to training made by the non-statutory training boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I believe that research currently being completed will show that the majority of non-statutory training organisations are effective in their role of improving their industry's training arrangements. The Manpower Services Commission is continuing to work to strengthen those organisations which are less effective.

  Training Funds
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of entirely new resources will be devoted to the new programme for training unemployed people.

  Mr. Cope
  Government funds for the new programme will total some £1·4 billion—the current provision for the programme it will replace. In addition, it is expected that employers will contribute towards the training costs of trainees engaged in practical training on their premises. It is estimated that these contributions will total about £150 million.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the cost of the enterprise allowance scheme in the current year; and how many individuals are participating in it.

  Mr. Cope
  The estimated cost of the enterprise allowance scheme is £208·1 million for the financial year 1987–88. This includes £8·8 million in running costs. Currently there are 96,000 participants on the scheme.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the payment of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The computerised payment system for the enterprise allowance scheme currently pays the allowance to 96,000 participants. Since the beginning of the scheme the system has satisfactorily paid the allowance to over 315,000 unemployed people who have started up their own business.

  YTS (Bridging Allowance)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the bridging allowance payable to young people waiting to enter YTS schemes.

  Mr. Cope
  None. The proposed bridging allowance will be set initially at £15 per week, more than twice the current level of child benefit. The allowance is designed to provide 552
  short·term help for those young people who may have to wait a few weeks for a YTS place after leaving a job or a previous YTS place.

  Mines (Women)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses to "Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" are in favour of denouncing international labour convention 45 on underground work (women) and European Social Charter article 8(4)(b).

  Mr. Nicholls
  No responses have been received to date concerning international labour convention 45: underground work (women) and European Social Charter article 8(4)(b). The closing date for comments on the consultative document is 29 February 1988.

  Training
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to increase the level of training and retraining in the working population.

  Mr. Cope
  The Employment Bill provides that the Manpower Services Commission will be renamed the Training Commission. Its main task will be to encourage the provision of skills that companies need for growth and individuals needs for jobs.

  To this end it will continue to develop the youth training scheme, as a high-quality training scheme for all young people under 18, including those in work, in order to produce a better qualified and more adaptable work force.

  Its provision for adults will give a high priority to training for the unemployed. Especially the long-term unemployed, to enable them to compete successfully for the growing number of jobs. Following my right hon. Friend's announcement of 18 November, we are now considering the commission's proposals for implementing a new programme to train up to 600,000 adults a year at a cost of some £1·4 billion and we aim to publish details in a White Paper shortly.

  We also look to the Training Commission to encourage and support others, especially employers, to respond to the lead given by this Department by increasing their investment in training and retraining throughout working life, to meet the demands of rapid change and competition.

  CBI (Training)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss training issues.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State often meets the president and director-general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss issues including training and receives advice on training from the Manpower Services Commission on which the CBI is represented.

  Claimant Statistics
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the numbers claiming benefit on the basis of no work being available, who are not seeking employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  According to the results of the labour force survey, in spring 1986 there were 860,000 people in the count of unemployed claimants who were not seeking work. Details were published in an article in the January 1988 edition of Employment Gazette.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve employment opportunities in the inner cities.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department of Employment and Manpower Services Commission provide a wide range of national programmes which aim to equip individuals with the skills and motivation to compete for available jobs and to stimulate enterprise and the growth of small businesses. The Government have guaranteed that(a) all unemployed 16 and 17·year·olds receive an offer of a place on YTS (b) all 18 to 25-year-olds unemployed between six and 12 months receive an offer of a place on the job training scheme, enterprise allowance scheme or in a jobclub; and (c) all those unemployed over six months receive a restart interview every six months. These guarantees provide direct help to unemployed inner city residents and serve to target resources on those areas of greatest need.

  The level of commitment is reflected in the estimated expenditure by the Department and the Manpower Services Commission of over £1·1 billion in the 57 urban partnership authorities.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution his Department is making to the Government's inner cities initiatives.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department of Employment and Manpower Services Commission provide a wide range of national programmes which aim to equip individuals with the skills and motivation to compete for available jobs and to stimulate enterprise and the growth of small businesses. The Government have guaranteed that(a) all unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds receive an offer of a place on the youth training scheme; (b) all 18 to 25-year-olds unemployed between six and 12 months receive an offer of a place on the job training scheme, enterprise allowance scheme or in a jobclub; and (c) all those unemployed over six months receive a restart interview every six months. These guarantees provide direct help to unemployed inner city residents and serve to target resources on those areas of greatest need.

  The level of commitment is reflected in the estimated expenditure by the Department and the Manpower Services Commission of over £1·1 billion in the 57 urban partnership authorities.

  Young People (Training)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people entered employment in 1987 with no access to training.
  554
  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  A postal Survey of young people aged 16 and 17 was conducted in February 1986 as part of the youth cohort study. Of these young people who were in full-time employment outside of YTS, 34 per cent. said that they were not receiving training or instructions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a guarantee of training for all young people entering employment for the first time.

  Mr. Cope
  Only employers can guarantee training for their own young employees but, through YTS the Government provide high-quality training for 16 and 17-year-old school leavers. The government intend in 1988 to guarantee a place on YTS for all young people under 18 who leave or lose a job or previous YTS place, right up to their 18th birthday. Very many employers see the benefits of YTS as a method of recruitment and training this is why YTS has become the main route into employment for the under-18 age group.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in the south London area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 4 December 1987, the number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the south London* area was 8,379.

  Note:—*Beckenham and Penge, Bermondsey, Bexley Heath, Borough, Brixton, Bromley, Catford, Camberwell, Clapham Junction, Croydon, Deptford and Greenwich, Eltham, Erith, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lewisham, Mitcham, Orpington, Sidcup, Stockwell, Streatham, Sutton, Tooting-Balham, West Norwood, Wimbledon, and Woolwich.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies are currently registered in jobcentres in East Anglia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the East Anglia region on the 4 December 1987 was 8,156.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the east midlands region on the 4 December 1987 was 11,787.

  Working Practices (Productivity)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to changes in working practices which are leading to increases in productivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  An increasing number of firms and plants are reaching agreements to reduce demarcation and allow more flexible working by craft and other employees. Others have achieved more efficient manning levels. These developments have clearly contributed to the substantial improvement in productivity in the 1980s.

  Conference and Exhibition Centres
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been invested in conference and exhibition centres in Britain over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures are not available for Britain over the past 10 years. However, the English tourist board's survey of investment in projects costing over £0·5 million shows that for the year 1987 a total of £202·9 million was invested in England in conference centres and theatres.

  Job Seekers (Relocation)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to assist job seekers wishing to locate in different regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department operates a number of provisions to assist job seekers wishing to locate in different regions of the United Kingdom, including the travel-to-interview scheme, and the NATVACS computerised vacancy bank. These are being kept under review. From 1 January 1988 assistance under the travelto-interview scheme has been extended to cover unemployed job seekers with interviews to attend in Northern Ireland.

  Adult Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received the Manpower Services Commission report on proposals for a new adult training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend has received the Manpower Services Commission proposals and has asked the Commission to begin the necessary preparatory work for introducing the new programme from September. The detailed decisions on the new programme will be included in the White Paper to be published later this month.

  Tourism
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to encourage tourism in Blackpool and the Fylde.

  Mr. Lee
  I understand that the Blackpool borough council currently spends some £800,000 a year on advertising, and £1·25 million on the illuminations. Amongst the many new tourism developments in the area are the 1,000·place car and coach park, the refurbishment of the Winter Gardens conference and exhibition centre, the opening of the Sandcastle centre and continuous capital investment at the pleasure beach. In addition, I understand that many existing hotels have improved and upgraded their facilities and several major new hotel developments are planned.

  Since 1985, the English tourist board have made some £388,000 of section 4 assistance available to tourism projects in Blackpool and the Fylde.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much tourists spent in the East Midlands Tourist Board area in 1986; and how many jobs tourism supports within the region.
  556
  Mr. Lee
  The amount spent by tourists in the East Midlands tourist board area in 1986 is estimated to be around £400 million. Estimates of employment in all tourism·related industries are not available on a regional basis for 1986. However, the number of employees in employment in hotels and catering in the east midlands was 58,900 in June 1986. This figure does not include the self-employed for whom a comparable estimate is not available.

  American Tourists
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Board to discuss American tourists visiting the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans to meet the chairman of the British tourist authority to discuss this topic in particular, but I maintain a very close interest in all the United Kingdom's tourism markets, and meet the chairman of the British tourist authority frequently.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of stay of United States visitors to Britain in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  An estimate of the average length of stay of United States visitors to Britain is not yet available for the whole of 1987. However, during the first half of the year (January to June), the average length of stay of United States visitors to the United Kingdom was nine days.

  Coaches (London)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to assist the London Tourist Board and the British Hotels, Restaurants, and Caterers Association in their implementation of a code of conduct for the handling of coaches in the capital.

  Mr. Lee
  I welcome the initiative of the London tourist board and the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association in preparing the code of conduct. I shall join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in taking every opportunity to encourage the coach industry to adopt the practices recommended in the code.

  Labour Trends
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the trend in unemployment.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers was 2,614,000 a fall of 505,400 over the last 12 months.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the British Tourist Authority; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Lee
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of the British tourist authority on 15 July. In my capacity as Minister of tourism I frequently
  557
  meet the chairman of the British tourist authority to discuss the problems and opportunities facing the industry.

  MSC (Training Initiatives)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss local training initiatives.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission frequently to discuss a wide range of training issues, including local training initiatives.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the small firms service.

  Mr. Cope
  The small firms service through its information and counselling arms works to promote viable and profitable small businesses. In 1986–87, in England, it handled 283,537 inquiries and gave 38,210 counselling sessions. With the development of local enterprise agencies, it is increasingly developing its counselling activities with established businesses.

  Copies of the annual report on the service for 1986–87 were placed in the Library in July.

  Engineering Industry (Skill Shortages)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the engineering industry training board to discuss skill shortages in the industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Ministers in the Department have regular meetings with all chairmen of industrial training boards to discuss various issues. I expect to meet the chairman of the engineering board in the spring.

  MSC (Training Measures)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss training measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission frequently to discuss a wide range of training issues.

  Training (Child Care Provision)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions there will be for child care payments under the new training scheme announced on 18 November 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  The proposals put forward by the Manpower Services Commission are being considered, and detailed arrangements for the new programme will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the White Paper to be published later this month.

  YTS (Allowances)
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the YTS scheme allowances for travelling to training centres.

  Mr. Cope
  These allowances will be considered in the light of the Manpower Services Commission's review of YTS funding which is now nearing completion.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest trends in the number of vacancies reported to jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres in the United Kingdom increased by 6·2 per cent. over the past 12 months to reach 236,100 in the month ending 4 December 1987.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in the north-west region on the 4 December 1987 was 22,010.

  Hotels (Job Opportunities)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created through hotel expansion in the Manchester area over the past two years.

  Mr. Lee
  The past two years have seen considerable growth in hotel provision in the Manchester area. It is estimated that nearly 1,800 full-time and part-time jobs have been created in hotel developments during that period in the cities of Manchester and Salford.

  New Hotels (Investment)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the amount of investment that took place in new hotels in the United Kingdom in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Comparable information is not available for the United Kingdom as a whole. However, English tourist board estimates show that over £318 million was invested in projects with a value of £0·5 million or more in new hotels, extensions and refurbishments in 1987.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of school leavers went directly into full-time employment(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  30 per cent. of those young people aged 16 on 1 September 1984, who had left school between September 1984 and February 1986, went directly into full-time employment, according to results of the England and Wales youth cohort survey. This information is not available for earlier years.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements in the survival rate of small firms has occurred since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The best available data on the number of small businesses that exist at any one time are provided by VAT registrations and deregistrations. They show no change in the lifespan of registered firms since 1979, although since that time there has been a rising number of registrations and an average net increase of 500 businesses a week.

  Hotel and Catering Industry (Wages)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of underpayment in the hotel and catering industry the wages inspectors investigated in 1987; how many were the result of complaints by staff; and how many were the result of routine spot checks.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Work on processing the Wages Inspectorate's statistics for 1987 is not yet complete. I shall arrange for the information requested to be published in the Official Report in due course.

  Government Contracts (Tendering)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responses he has had to the booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts".

  Mr. Cope
  The response to this booklet has been most encouraging. Since the second edition became available in September 1987, almost 4,000 copies per month have been sent out to small firms centres and similar outlets for distribution to the public. Key extracts from the booklet are also held on the Prestel database.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of overseas visitor nights were spent out of London in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  An estimate of the percentage of overseas visitor nights spent out of London is not available for the whole of 1987. However, in the first half of the year (January to June) approximately 57 per cent. of all nights spent in the United Kingdom by overseas visitors were spent outside London.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inquiries were received by enterprise agencies and as a consequence how many new businesses were created in 1987.

  Mr. Cope
  Local enterprise agencies are independent bodies accountable to their own boards and sponsors. This Department does not have comprehensive information on the inquiries they handle or the businesses they have helped to create.

  Business in the Community's most recent survey of agencies, undertaken in spring 1986, showed that the 132 agencies responding to a question on inquiries had
  560
  handled some 129,000 enquiries. 118 agencies replying to a question on business start-ups claimed to have helped create more than 10,000 new businesses.

  Leicester (Unemployment)
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the decline in unemployment in Leicester in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Leicester local authority area was 15,378—a fall of 3,519 since December 1986.

  Tourism (Hearing-Impaired People)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done in the tourism industry to provide special aids for the hearing-impaired.

  Mr. Lee
  The Holiday Care Service in conjunction with the English tourist board has produced a booklet "Providing for Disabled Visitors", which gives guidance to the tourism industry on helping people with impaired hearing. I understand that an increasing number of hotels and places of entertainment are installing induction loop systems.

  North-West Region
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the change in the level of employment in the north-west region since January 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Between December 1986 (figures are not available for January 1987) and September 1987 the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian employed labour force in the north-west region fell by 3,000. The figure is unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations.

  The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures for the number of people currently unemployed in the constituency of Basildon, and for the corresponding period in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Basildon in December of each year since 1984. The comparison is affected by the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986.

  Number

  December 1984

  6,913

  December 1985

  6,400

  December 1986

  6,165

  December 1987

  4,549

  Self-Employment
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently self-employed; and if he will make a statement.
  561
  Mr. Lee
  In December 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 2,720,000 self-employed people in Great Britain.

  East Midlands
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the decline in unemployment in the east midlands and the rise in the number of unfilled vacancies in Nottingham.

  Mr. Lee
  On 10 December 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the east midlands region, adjusted for seasonality and excluding school leavers was 162,800 a fall of 30,800 over the last 12 months. The number of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres in Nottingham on 4 December 1987, was 1,305 an increase of 86 since December 1986.

  The jobcentres that cover Nottingham are Nottingham, Arnold, Bulwell, Ilkeston, and Netherfield.

  Tourists (Surrey)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visitors stayed overnight in Surrey in 1986; how much they spent, and how many jobs they provided.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on the total number of visitors to Surrey is not available for 1986. However, overseas residents made about 450,000 overnight visits to Surrey in 1986 and spent about £95 million. The latest data on employment in tourism-related industries in Surrey relate to September 1984 when there were an estimated 21,600 employees in employment. This figure excludes self-employed persons for whom a comparable estimate is not available.

  Community Programmes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance he has given to managers of community programmes about the arrangements they should make to prepare for the replacement of the programme in mid-August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Manpower Services Commission to proceed immediately with preparatory work on the new adult training programme. Therefore the Manpower Services Commission has issued guidance to its area managers about the arrangements they should make to prepare for the replacement of the community programme from September 1988. This guidance proposes that the contracts of community programme agents and independent sponors which are due for renewal from 1 February,should be extended up to the start of the new programme. To help ensure a smooth transition the Manpower Services Commission's area managers will be talking in detail to all agents and sponsors about these arrangements and the positive role they can continue to play in moving forward into the new programme.

  Tourism (Unified Business Rate)
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding the effect of the proposed unified business rate on the tourism industry; and if he will make a statement.
  562
  Mr. Lee
  I have no reason to expect that the introduction of the proposed unified business rate will have any significant effect on the tourism industry as a whole in England.

  Industrial Injury
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of working hours lost as a result of industrial injury in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. For information on working days lost, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him in the Official Report, 24 July 1987 at column 669.

  Historic Churches
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to assist historic churches to attract tourist visitors.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board offered assistance totalling some £185,000 from the section 4 scheme to tourism developments relating to historic churches in the 1986–87 financial year. At regional level a number of specific initiatives are planned including the 1988 Festival of Yorkshire Abbeys.

  New Training Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish his White Paper on the new training programme.

  Mr. Fowler
  I plan to publish a White Paper on unemployment and training shortly. It will set out the Government's decisions on the new training programme for the adult unemployed.

  Deaf Unemployed People
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those registered unemployed were deaf in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Disabled Person's Unit
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to the future of the Manpower Services Commission's disabled person's unit.

  Mr. Lee
  Neither the Manpower Services Commission nor the employment service has a disabled person's unit. However, the employment service of this Department has responsibility for the disablement resettlement service. This provides help to people with disabilities in the employment field, through jobcentre services, disablement resettlement officers and the disablement advisory service.

  The Manpower Services Commission has responsibility for the employment rehabilitation service, which provides assessment and rehabilitation through employment rehabilitation centres and ASSET (assistance towards employment) centres.

  Disablement Advisory Service
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the use of the disablement advisory service; and if he has any plans to encourage an expansion in its use.

  Mr. Lee
  The disablement advisory service was introduced in 1983. Up to October 1987, well over 37,000 employers had been visited by staff of the service to promote and advise on the implementation of good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities and advice had been given in over 24,000 cases involving retention, career development and promotion of individual disabled employees, provision of aids to employment, and so on. The service has an important role in marketing the code of good practice on the employment of disabled people. The service has recently been supplemented by a major organisations' development unit to liaise at senior levels with very large employing organisations. Marketing of these services to employers will continue as in the past. There are no further plans for expansion.

  Deaf People (Training)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training services his Department provides for people who have been deafened.

  Mr. Lee
  Training programmes are delivered through the Manpower Services Commission. The commission provides a number of dedicated services for people with disabilities including, though not exclusively for, the deaf. These include the employment rehabilitation service, residential training, and other specialist training schemes.

  In addition, all mainstream training programmes supported by the Commission are open to, and designed to encourage opportunities for, deaf people who are otherwise eligible, both those born deaf and those in whom the condition is acquired. Special arrangements have been introduced in both the youth training scheme and the new job training scheme to provide support for deaf trainees through trained communicators.

  The Commission has also sponsored training courses for communicators and for British sign language trainers.

  Deaf People (Employment)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the number of(a) profoundly deaf and (b) hard of hearing people in (i) full-time employment and (ii) part·time employment in England and Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret this information is not available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to monitor the progress of deaf and hearing-impaired people in employment.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans at present to monitor any groups of people with disabilities who are in employment.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has any plans to collect more comprehensive statistics on the employment of deaf and hearing-impaired people.

  Mr. Lee
  I expect to receive shortly final proposals for research into the numbers and characteristics of people 564
  with disabilities in the labour force. The precise breakdown of disabilities to be used in this research is yet to be established, but I will keep in mind the need for information about people who are deaf and hearing impaired as will also be done for people with all types of disability. My Department has no plans at present to collect regular statistics of this kind.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to update the Manpower Services Commission's booklet "Code of Good Practice on Employment of Disabled People" to include more details on deafness and hearing impairment.

  Mr. Lee
  The code of good practice on the employment of disabled people will be reviewed in the light of the results of current research into employers' attitudes towards the quota scheme and the impact of the code. I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) deaf and (b) hearingimpaired people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this represents of all employees in his Department.

  M. Lee
  This answer can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaf people currently registered unemployed have been unemployed for more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) three years.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of deaf people who are unemployed by region.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Deafness Awareness Training
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide deafness awareness training for all jobcentre staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  We intend that jobcentres will participate in the sympathetic hearing scheme, and intend that all jobcentre staff will receive appropriate training this year.

  We have recently made induction hearing loops available to all jobcentres, and are monitoring their usage and effectiveness. Help is also available from specialist social workers belonging to local authority social services departments and from relevant voluntary organisations when professional interpreting assistance is required for communicating with some profoundly deaf clients.

  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what element of the initial training of disablement resettlement officers is specifically devoted to(a) deaf awareness and (b) communication skills.

  Mr. Lee
  One module of the initial training course for disablement resettlement officers is specifically about the
  565
  problems of hearing impairments including communication aspects. This is followed by project work, which includes establishing links with local agencies helping the deaf, and acquiring knowledge of resources available at local, regional and national level.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used to judge whether disabled people should be advised by disablement resettlement officers or other jobcentre staff.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no hard and fast rules, but disablement resettlement officers (DROs) provide particular help to those people with disabilities who require specialist occupational counselling and advice, and those who have special needs arising from their disabilities.

  In particular, they help (a) recently disabled people, (b) those who have an acute need for occupational advice in relation to their disability, (c) those who need counselling to engender either confidence or realism in relation to their employment prospects, and (d) those whose disability impedes the process of job search and for whom the normal jobcentre services are therefore not appropriate.

  However, anyone with a disability can see a DRO on request.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaf people were placed in work by the disablement resettlement officer service for each of the last five years; and of these how many went into sheltered workshops.

  Mr. Lee
  The disablement resettlement officer service aims to help all people with disabilities, regardless of the type of disability. I therefore regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disablement resettlement officers are currently employed by region.

  Mr. Lee
  The numbers of disablement resettlement officers currently employed, by region are as follows:

  Numbers

  Northern

  27

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  43

  East Midlands & Eastern

  37

  London and the South East:

  Eastern Division

  38

  Southern Division

  39

  Western Division

  36

  South West

  33

  Wales

  28

  West Midlands

  42

  North West

  47

  Scotland

  45

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average length of service for a disablement resettlement officer for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret the information is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disablement resettlement officers currently employed are qualified in communication skills with deaf people.
  566
  Mr. Lee
  I regret the information is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the level of training about deafness given to disablement resettlement officers.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans at present to increase the level of training about deafness given to disablement resettlement officers.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average size of population served by a disablement resettlement officer.

  Mr. Lee
  Disablement resettlement services are organised in relation to various considerations —geographical location, the size of the labour market, proximity of hospitals, public transport availability, size of caseload and so on. An "average size of population" served by a disablement resettlement officer would therefore have little real meaning, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to improve the career prospects for disablement resettlement officers.

  Mr. Lee
  Disablement resettlement officers are members of the executive officer grade of the administration group of the home Civil Service. As such they are eligible for the normal avenues of promotion and career developmental opportunities appropriate to that grade.

  Bargain Breaks
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to promote bargain breaks and leisure learning breaks overseas.

  Mr. Lee
  The British tourist authority undertakes a number of marketing initiatives to promote these forms of tourism. It has conducted joint advertising campaigns with trade partners throughout northern Europe and Scandanavia to encourage a greater interest in them and to create an awareness of the wide range available throughout Great Britain.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereal Farmers
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the cost of support for European Community cereal farmers through the common agricultural policy; how many predominantly cereal farmers there are in the United Kingdom; and what was the average income of such farmers for the latest available year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1986 expenditure on cereals under the guarantee section of the EAGGF was 3,391 million ecus (£2,197 million).

  At the June 1986 agricultural census there were 19,600 specialist cereals holdings in the United Kingdom.

  Figures for the total income of cereals farmers are not available. For the year 1986–87 (March to February) the average net farm income for specialist cereal farms in the United Kingdom was £9,200.
  567
  Notes:

  (a) Specialist cereal farms are defined as those where more than two thirds of their gross margins are generated from cereals.

  (b) Net farm income represents the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on tenant-type assets such as farm machinery invested in the farm business. It is calculated before the deduction of interest charges.

  Animal Slaughter (Pre-stunning)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the research into the pre-stunning of animals at time of slaughter will be complete.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is funding research projects in this area at the Agricultural and Food Research Council's institute of food research (Bristol). It is not possible to say when this work will be completed.

  Milk Production
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has as to the likely final milk production figure for the United Kingdom in 1987–88.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is too early to forecast precisely the volume of milk production in the United Kingdom for the 1987–88 year. However, our latest estimate is that wholesale deliveries will be very close to the level of the United Kingdom wholesale quota which is fixed at 14,057·3 million litres.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken by the European Community to ensure that national figures for milk production are accurate, and that European Community instructions concerning milk quotas are observed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Commission takes very seriously its obligation to ensure that it has accurate information about production in each member state and cross-checks material supplied by them with nationally published statistics. Each member state has been visited by the European Community's Court of Auditors or by inspectors from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund and some countries have been visited by both agencies. Failure on the part of a member state to meet its Community obligations can result in proceedings in the European Court of Justice and the Commission has recently won its case against Italy for failure to implement the quota regime.

  Creameries
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list information available to him on the creameries closed in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the management of creameries is a matter for the companies concerned and i do not therefore have comprehensive records. He will also be aware that these companies will take their decisions about deployment of capital on the basis of a range of factors including supplies, efficiency and market developments. It follows from this that some closures will have been part of programmes 568
  which include expansion at other plants or in other areas of a company's activities. The creamery closures listed need to be considered in this light.

  Date

  Owned by

  Location

  January 1985

  Dairy Crest

  Uttoxeter, Staffs

  March 1986

  Dairy Crest

  Johnstown, Dyfed

  May 1986

  Dairy Crest

  Bason Bridge, Somerset

  January 1987

  Dairy Crest

  Ellesmere, Shropshire

  January 1987

  Dairy Crest

  Kirby Malzeard, North Yorkshire

  January 1987

  Dairy Crest

  Coverham, North Yorkshire

  January 1987

  Unigate

  Wincanton, Somerset

  August 1987

  Dairy Crest

  Haslington, Cheshire

  October 1987

  Dairy Crest

  Wymeswold, Leicestershire

  New Zealand Lamb
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total tonnage of imports of New Zealand lamb in each year since 1970, and the percentage of the total United Kingdom lamb market that these imports represent in each year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  New Zealand mutton and lamb imports

  Imports as percentage of Offtake1

  1970

  295·6

  54·3

  1971

  310·3

  54·6

  1972

  293·8

  55·8

  1973

  239·2

  50·6

  1974

  203·5

  46·2

  1975

  234·3

  49·3

  1976

  213·5

  49·2

  1977

  213·3

  53·2

  1978

  213·6

  53·0

  1979

  200·5

  49·7

  1980

  188·7

  43·6

  1981

  155·7

  40·0

  1982

  217·6

  51·8

  1983

  164·5

  39·3

  1984

  144·1

  35·9

  1985

  151·9

  37·8

  1986

  119·4

  32·2

  1987 (Provisional)

  119·8

  34·1

  Source: Customs and Excise (Import figures).

  1 Offtake is home-fed production plus imports minus exports, adjusted for stock change.

  New Zealand Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total tonnage of imports of New Zealand butter in each year since 1970, and the percentage of the total United Kingdom butter market that these imports represent in each year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Percentage of United Kingdom butter market

  1970

  157,419

  33

  1971

  146,749

  33

  1972

  117,732

  29

  1973

  131,953

  31

  1974

  119,440

  24

  1975

  123,955

  24

  569

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Percentage of United Kingdom butter market

  1976

  122,626

  27

  1977

  129,016

  31

  1978

  129,779

  32

  1979

  119,878

  31

  1980

  104,832

  30

  1981

  99,422

  30

  1982

  99,152

  33

  1983

  93,760

  31

  1984

  89,110

  31

  1985

  77,893

  27

  1986

  76,238

  27

  Source: United Kingdom figures from Department of Trade and Industry Overseas Trade Statistics

  Radioactivity (Sheep)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why no sheep which had died from natural causes were monitored for radioactivity in the restricted area of Cumbria after March 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's monitoring effort is directed primarily at the protection of the food chain and thus at the monitoring of live sheep leaving the Cumbria restricted area under the "mark and release" scheme. The hon. Member has been informed of arrangements for dealing with sheep which have died of natural causes in my replies of 1 December and 10 December 1987 at columns 541–2 and 259 respectively.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his Ministry's contingency plans to deal with the effects of a nuclear accident overseas; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's contingency plans for dealing with emergency contamination of food or agriculture involving the powers provided in part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 are in process of revision following the development of the national response plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 June 1987 at columns 65–67 and in the light of our experience of operating the plans during the post-Chernobyl period. I will place a copy of the revised plans in the Library of the House when the revision is complete and I will let the hon. Member know when I have done so.

  Radioactivity Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the monitoring programmes for radioactivity his Ministry has undertaken or commissioned since May 1986, the type of substances tested, if animals were tested and whether they were alive or dead, and where any results have been published.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department maintains routine monitoring programmes in both the aquatic and terrestrial environments and additional emergency monitoring has been ongoing in both these areas since the Chernobyl accident. A comprehensive range of food, agricultural and aquatic materials is monitored in these 570
  programmes. Animal testing is based on dead samples with the exception of the programme of live monitoring of sheep in the restricted areas. Data have been published in (i) radionuclide levels in food, animals and agricultural products, (ii) aquatic environment monitoring report numbers 15 and 18. These reports together with additional tabulated aquatic data and live monitoring results for sheep have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Farm Waste Unit
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he is making to the operation of the farm waste unit, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I attach great importance to the work and advice on pollution control undertaken by my Department which I am determined should be carried out as efficiently as possible. The farm waste unit has made a very valuable contribution in this area but there is now far more need for advice at local level. Responsibility for this aspect of its work is being transferred to the regional farm mechanisation advisers, and local ADAS advisers in the field who are better placed to maintain close contact with the customer. The unit's research and development functions will of course continue to be carried out centrally under two specialist posts established for this purpose.

  Bacon and Pork Imports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated advantages for bacon and pork imports from EEC countries in the United Kingdom market arising from present green currency rates; whether he will make representations to have an urgent change in the green pound rates; and if he will make a statement on the present state of the United Kingdom's pig industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The monetary compensatory amounts payable on imports from Denmark and Holland are currently £53·85 per tonne for pig carcases and £68·93 per tonne for bacon sides. Our commitment is to see MCAs abolished in this sector. There are widely differing views within the EC on this issue and it will not be easy to achieve. But we shall be battling for MCA changes in the agricultural price review. I welcome the decision to reintroduce aids for the private storage of pigmeat which should help to strengthen the market; that decision was taken by the management committee as a result of pressure from the United Kingdom and other member states.

  Food (Radioactivity Levels)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the permissible radioactivity levels in food agreed at the recent European Economic Community Council of Ministers meeting.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Council Regulation (Euratom) No. 3954/87 of 22 December 1987 lays down the procedure for determining the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs which may be placed on the market following a future nuclear emergency. The levels specified are as follows:
  571

  Maximum permitted levels for foodstuffs and feedingstuffs (Bq/kg or Bq/l)

  Baby foods1

  Dairy produce2 3

  Other foodstuffs except minor foodstuffs4

  Liquid foodstuffs5

  Feedingstuffs6

  Isotopes of strontium, notably Sr-90

  —

  125

  750

  —

  —

  Isotopes of iodine notably I-131

  —

  500

  2,000

  —

  —

  Alpha-emitting isotopes of plutonium and transplutonium elements, notably Pu-239, Am-241

  —

  20

  80

  —

  —

  All other nuclides of half-life greater than 10 days, notably Cs-134, Cs-1377

  —

  1,000

  1,250

  —

  —

  1 Baby foods are defined as those foodstuffs intended for the feeding of infants during the first four to six months of life, which meet, in themselves, the nutritional requirements of this category of person and are put up for retail sale in packages which are clearly identified and labelled 'food preparation for infants'. Values to be established.

  2 Dairy produce is defined as milk falling within headings Nos. 04.01 and 04.02 of the Common Customs Tariff, and the corresponding headings of the combined nomenclature as from 1 January 1988.

  3 The level applicable to concentrated or dried products shall be calculated on the basis of the reconstituted product as ready for consumption.

  4 Minor foodstuffs and the corresponding levels to be applied to them will be as defined in accordance with Article 7.

  5 Liquid foodstuffs as defined by Chapters 20 and 22 of the Common Customs Tariff and by the corresponding Chapter of the combined nomenclature as from 1 January 1988. Values are calculated taking into account consumption of tap-water and the same values should be applied to drinking water supplies at the discretion of competent authorities in member states. Values for liquid foodstuffs to be established.

  6 Values to be established.

  7 Carbon 14 and tritium are not included in this group.

  This regulation entered into force on 3 January 1988 alongside Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3955/87 which continues the controls on imports of agricultural products from third countries introduced following the Chernobyl accident.

  Pig Producers
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current problems of pig producers and on the action he is taking to improve the situation affecting monetary compensatory amounts.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

  Milk Production
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farmers in each county in England and Wales produce milk up to the quota; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his answer, 25 January 1988, c. 52]: In the 1986–87 quota year, the number of dairy farmers in each county of England and Wales who delivered more milk than their wholesale quota are set out in the following table. The position given is before any interchange between wholesale and direct sale quota and is not therefore final. These data are held by the Milk Marketing Board on the basis of names and boundaries that applied in 1933; they do not therefore reflect existing county boundaries.

  County

  Number of producers over quota in 1986–87

  As a percentage of total producers in county

  Cumberland

  716

  49

  Durham

  185

  48

  Northumberland

  104

  54

  Westmorland

  367

  55

  Yorkshire, East Riding

  141

  51

  Yorkshire, North Riding

  670

  55

  572

  County

  Number of producers over quota in 1986–87

  As a percentage of total producers in county

  Cheshire

  1,084

  60

  Lancashire

  1,070

  53

  Yorkshire, West Riding

  1,016

  57

  Derbyshire

  717

  61

  Staffordshire

  980

  60

  Lincolnshire

  172

  69

  Cambridgeshire and Ely

  17

  63

  Huntingdon and Peterborough

  13

  62

  Suffolk

  122

  65

  Norfolk

  177

  62

  Bedfordshire

  30

  58

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  363

  63

  Northamptonshire

  127

  66

  Nottinghamshire

  131

  65

  Warwickshire

  268

  65

  Gloucestershire

  533

  59

  Herefordshire

  236

  59

  Monmouth

  241

  61

  Worcestershire

  210

  60

  Shropshire

  819

  60

  Anglesey

  79

  33

  Caernarvon

  83

  35

  Denbigh

  355

  56

  Flint

  279

  61

  Merioneth

  21

  25

  Montgomery

  254

  58

  Brecon

  35

  43

  Cardigan

  411

  49

  Carmarthen

  806

  46

  Glamorgan

  158

  48

  Pembroke

  527

  48

  Radnor

  9

  50

  Berkshire

  101

  55

  Buckinghamshire

  144

  58

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  259

  51

  Oxfordshire

  131

  62

  Dorset

  570

  56

  Somerset

  1,297

  58

  Wiltshire

  592

  64

  Devon

  1,559

  49

  Cornwall

  918

  49

  Essex

  71

  54

  Hertfordshire

  55

  52

  Kent

  130

  53

  Greater London

  8

  42

  573

  County

  Number of producers over quota in 1986–87

  As a percentage of total producers in county

  Surrey

  96

  58

  East Sussex

  184

  55

  West Sussex

  138

  57

  In England and Wales, supplementary levy liability arises on the net excess of deliveries over quota for the Milk Marketing Board as a whole. This system contributes to meeting the needs of the industry by providing the flexibility for some producers to exceed their quotas, and for this over-production to be offset by the extent to which other producers fall short of their quotas. In 1986–87, when the net excess of production over quota in England and Wales was less than 1 per cent., about 54 per cent. of producers were over quota and about 45 per cent. under quota.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Radiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of farms, the number of sheep and the area of land, in acres, under restriction in Northern Ireland as a result of radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested is as follows: 123 farms, 27,355 sheep and 21,612 acres.

  Pig Products
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what system of inspection is in operation to examine imports of pig products from Belgium, France, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany for(a) swine fever, and (b) antibiotic residues; and what controls are applied to imports of pig products from (i) Great Britain and (ii) the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Imports into Northern Ireland of pig products from Belgium, France, Denmark, Netherlands and West Germany are subject to licensing controls operated by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in accordance with the rules of intra-Community trade which preclude pigmeat from areas affected with swine fever (or meat in contact with such meat) and meat containing antibiotics residues.

  These controls provide for examination by the Department of the veterinary health certification required to accompany consignments and of the product itself at points of entry to Northern Ireland. All documentation is inspected to ensure that EC directive requirements are fully satisfied. Similar controls apply in the case of imports from Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

  Imports into Northern Ireland from outside the United Kingdom of pig products, as foods intended for sale for human consumption, are also liable to examination by authorised officers of district councils under the Imported Food (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984. Such foods must be marked with a health mark which has been recognised by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and must be accompanied by a health certificate in a format set out in the regulations.

  FEOGA Grants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he was first informed that there had been no successful applications for FEOGA grants for new fishing boats in the recent allocations by the EEC; what was the closing date for appeal against this decision; when Northern Irish applicants were advised of the closing dates for appeal; what information was available to him on the degree of completeness of some Northern Irish applications before he knew that they had been rejected; if he has all necessary documentation to ensure that applications were complete; and if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in assisting applicants for FEOGA grants for new fishing boats.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland became aware that no Northern Ireland projects for new fishing boats submitted under the first round of EC regulation 4028/86 were to be approved by the Commission when the draft decisions were tabled for the opinion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries Structures at its meeting on 11 December 1987. There is no appeals procedure against these Commission decisions but in the Standing Committee the United Kingdom delegation made representations regarding the low level of aid to Northern Ireland.

  In the early autumn the Department became aware from informal contacts that the Commission intended strictly to apply powers which exist in the regulation to reject as incomplete those applications not accompanied by plans and specifications for new boats. The Commission decisions resulting from the application of this rule agree with the Department's records, except for three cases where plans were submitted but the Commission has rejected the application as incomplete because of the absence of plans.

  In common with the other Fisheries Departments, the Department of Agriculture make application forms and explanatory leaflets available to prospective applicants. When any additional or supplementary information is obtained from the Commission, this is made available to fishermen's representative organisations. The Department is responsible for the initial receipt of applications and onward submission to the Commission along with certification that the project forms part of the United Kingdom's multi-annual guidance programme, the extent and form of member state aid, the VAT status of the applicant and details of any existing boat belonging to the applicant. However, responsibility for the completion of applications rests with the applicant or his agent.

SCOTLAND

  Lothian Region
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people under the age of 25 years are currently unemployed in Lothian region.

  Mr. Lang
  On 8 October 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) there were 15,926 unemployed claimants under 25 years of age in Lothian region.

  This information is available in the Library.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of manufacturing employment in Scotland at June 1979, June 1983, June 1987 and January 1988.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of manufacturing employment in Scotland at June 1979, June 1983, June 1987 and January 1988.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the levels of manufacturing employment in Scotland at June 1979, June 1983, June 1987 and January 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The table sets out the estimates for June 1979, June 1983, June 1987 and September 1987, the latest date for which this information is available. Some of the decline in the figures for manufacturing will be the result of reclassification of jobs such as industrial cleaning, catering, road haulage and other services previously done by manufacturers' own employees and now done by subcontractors outside manufacturing.

  Employees in Employment in Manufacturing Industry in Scotland (Thousands, seasonally adjusted).

  Estimated Numbers

  June 1979

  605

  June 1983

  445

  June 1987

  399

  September 1987

  393

  Blood
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his estimate of the proportion and number of adults in Scotland that would be suitable for blood donation;

  (2) what proportion and number of suitable adults give blood in Scotland;

  (3) what proportion and number of suitable adults are needed to give blood to make Scotland self-sufficient in blood-derived products;

  (4) whether he will consider reducing the period between permitted donations of blood to four months from six, to ease the shortage of blood and blood-derived products, and to make Scotland self-sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scotland has been self-sufficient in blood and all normally-required blood products since the end of 1983. Approximately 300,000 blood donations are collected each year, representing about one donation per 11 persons in the age group (18 to 65-year-olds) eligible to give blood.

  Individuals whose health is such that it is not safe for them to give blood are excluded from so doing. Similarly, there are restrictions on giving blood to reduce the risk of transmitting diseases—for example, malaria, hepatitis or AIDS. The total number of people who as a result are not suitable for blood donation, however, is not known.

  The Scottish national blood transfusion service already accepts blood donations at 12-weekly intervals although donors are sent invitations to attend to give blood at 16-weekly or six monthly intervals, depending on local collection arrangements. Apheresis donations (in which
  576
  donors give a particular part of their blood and that part which is not required is returned) can be made at intervals of only a few weeks.

  D and C Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the rate of deaths per 10,000 women having D and C operations in Scotland in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available of(a) anaesthetic deaths arising directly or indirectly out of such operations, (b) deaths due to embolism directly or indirectly linked to such operations, and (c) other deaths directly due to such operations; and if he will break down this rate by whether or not the D and C operation also involved an abortion.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he had concerning the total number of D and C operations performed in Scotland in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on 18 January,Official Report, column 515, what information he has as to any of those cases which were marked for no proceedings by reason of resources not being available to deal with them within the judicial system in any fiscaldom in Scotland between 1984 and 30 November 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information relating to cases which were marked "no proceedings" is not available.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of regional selective assistance to be paid out in Scotland for each year from 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: The 1988 public expenditure White Paper contains net provision for my right hon. and learned Friend's industry, energy, trade and employment programme in 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, of £266 million, £260 million and £260 million, respectively. Within these totals present expectation is that regional selective assistance (RSA) and related schemes, including the new investment grant for small businesses, will account for some £60 million, £60 million and £80 million in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, respectively. The increase in provision between the years reflects expected additional demand for RSA which is envisaged as a result of the ending of the RDG scheme. In addition, support to firms in Scotland will be provided through the new innovation grants scheme and enhanced business development services.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures are taken by his Department to enforce payment of national insurance contributions by employers so that employees are not denied entitlement to unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Employees' class 1 national insurance contributions are usually collected by the Inland Revenue's PAYE arrangements, the bulk of which are paid into the national insurance fund. The Inland Revenue can recover contributions that are not paid over by employers, but this Department takes responsibility for enforcement. Enforcement is usually achieved by suing for the debt in the civil courts, but criminal proceedings can be instituted.

  There are some, 2,000 national insurance inspectors, who examine employers' records to ensure compliance with the National Insurance Contributions Regulations. In the year ending April 1987 the inspectors completed some 100,000 surveys, in which employers' records were examined. Inland Revenue PAYE auditors also visit firms and examine their records. These routine visits can lead to the discovery of irregularities.

  Employees' contributions which have been collected are recorded after the end of the tax year on the person's national insurance account, which is held by the Department's records branch. If insufficient contributions are recorded there for that year, the person is informed, and irregularities can then come to light. Failure on the part of employers to pay over contributions can also be discovered when a benefit claim fails.

  All cases where contributions have not been recorded on the person's account are investigated urgently. Contributions will usually be treated as if they had been paid, so that entitlement to benefit is not affected. Action is then brought against the employer to recover the arrears.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many newly qualified midwives entered into practice in(a) Hartlepool area district health authority, (b) Sunderland district health authority and (c) Durham district health authority in the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The latest staff in post figures are shown in the table.
  578

  National Health Service midwives in post1 at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Hartlepool district health authority

  53

  Sunderland district health authority

  144

  Durham district health authority

  71

  Source: DHSS — Annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes agency midwives. Excludes student midwives.

  2 Figures independently rounded to nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the establishment for, and the actual number of, midwives employed in the King's and St. Thomas's health districts.

  Mr. Newton
  Information for individual hospitals is not held centrally. "King's and St. Thomas's health districts" have been interpreted as Camberwell and West Lambeth district health authorities.

  Funded establishment figures are not collected centrally.

  Staff in post figures are shown in the table.

  National Health Service midwifery staff in post1 at 30 September 1986

  Selected district health authorities

  Whole-time equivalents2

  Camberwell district health authority

  180

  West Lambeth district health authority

  150

  Source: DHSS — Annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Includes agency staff.

  2 Figures are rounded to nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  Disqualification (Appeals)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply given on 26 November 1987,Official Report, columns 263–64, he will indicate the number of cases of disqualification that were taken to an appeal tribunal, showing how many resulted in the disqualification being overruled, distinguishing as far as possible between the different heads of section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975; and if he will also provide information for each year since 1976 showing the number of such appeals and the outcome of the appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available prior to April 1984, the date of the establishment of the independent office of the president of social security appeal tribunals, and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. The available information is shown in the table.
  579

  Social Security Appeals Tribunals:

  Appeals on section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 on disqualifications for unemployment benefit:

  Great Britain: 1984 to 1987

  1984 (April to December)

  1985

  Number of

  Number of

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Category of disqualification1

  Appeals heard and decided

  Decisions in the claimant's favour

  Appeals heard and decided

  Decisions in the claimant's favour

  Section 20(1)a

  4,283

  1,209

  6,378

  2,160

  Section 20(1)b

  40

  13

  49

  22

  Section 20(1)c

  10

  1

  33

  9

  Section 20(1)d

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Section 20(1)e

  56

  15

  86

  16

  TOTAL

  4,390

  1,239

  6,546

  2,207

  1986

  1987 (January to March)

  Number of

  Number of

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Category of disqualification1

  Appeals heard and decided

  Decisions in the claimant's favour

  Appeals heard and decided

  Decisions in the claimant's favour

  Section 20(1)a

  6,282

  2,509

  1,473

  685

  Section 20(1)b

  43

  13

  15

  8

  Section 20(1)c

  33

  8

  6

  4

  Section 20(1)d

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Section 20(1)e

  67

  16

  17

  7

  TOTAL

  6,428

  2,548

  1,511

  704

  1 The categories of disqualification are:

  20(1)a—misconduct or leaving voluntarily.

  20(1)b—refusal of employment.

  20(1)c—neglect to be made available for an opportunity of suitable employment.

  20(1)d—refusal to carry out an official recommendation.

  20(1)e—refusal or premature termination of training.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the costs of Great Ormond street children's hospital is met(a) by his Department, (b) from charities including the Wishing Well Appeal and (c) from other specified sources.

  Mrs. Currie
  Approximately £40·1 million of Exchequer capital and revenue was spent by the Hospitals for Sick Children special health authority (which is also responsible for Queen Elizabeth hospital, Hackney) at Great Ormond street last year; to which was added some £2·3 million expended on behalf of a number of charitable organisations by its special trustees.

  The £30 million which the Wishing Well Appeal hopes to raise over the next seven years will go towards rebuilding and equipment at Great Ormond street. The Government intend to make a contribution of approximately £27 million to this redevelopment, over and above capital committed to maintenance of existing buildings, fees and equipment. The exact size of this contribution will not be known until detailed costing of the scheme is complete.

  We warmly welcome the tradition of partnership between voluntary and statutory sources of support for which this internationally prestigious hospital is already famous.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance is issued to health authorities 580
  regarding consultants employed by health authorities acting as partners or beneficiaries in private homes allocated to patients under the Government's community care policy.

  Mr. Newton
  None. This is a matter for health authorities to determine locally in the light of individual circumstances.

  Dialysis Patients
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects (EPO) to be made available to dialysis patients suffering from acute anaemia.

  Mr. Newton
  The licensing authority has recently received an application to market a medicinal product containing rDNA erythropoietin (EPO), a product developed by a biotechnological process. Similar applications have also been received by other member states of the European Community. Under the procedure introduced by directive 87/22/EEC for the purpose of increasing the harmonisation of licensing decisions in the Community for "high technology" medicinal products, one member state has requested an opinion on EPO from the Community's Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. This opinion must be taken into account before a national licensing decision can be made. I am unable to comment on the likely outcome of this application or to predict when EPO will become generally available in the United Kingdom. It is currently being used on a limited scale to treat patients who are participating in clinical
  581
  trials of the substance and can be used by registered medical practitioners for individuals on a "named patient basis"

  Hospital Patient Statistics
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the number of in-patient beds currently available in each outer London health district; and if he will identify what proportion of beds in each district is available for patients requiring intensive care;

  Average daily number of available beds in the National Health Service, Outer London, 1986

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for Younger disabled

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Total

  Barnet

  740·0

  110·3

  509·3

  30·0

  30·0

  904·4

  2,324·0

  Harrow

  544·7

  100·0

  155·6

  —

  —

  86·0

  886·3

  Hillingdon

  920·5

  77·0

  262·6

  15·0

  —

  54·0

  1,329·1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  803·1

  109·6

  286·4

  —

  —

  157·2

  1,356·3

  Ealing

  381·9

  55·0

  158·2

  —

  —

  914·1

  1,509·2

  Brent

  433·7

  57·9

  302·3

  16·0

  92·0

  981·0

  1,882·9

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  1,188·8

  101·1

  505·1

  33·8

  133·6

  802·4

  2,764·8

  Enfield

  519·8

  88·6

  229·8

  16·8

  76·9

  123·3

  1,055·2

  Haringey

  715·3

  69·0

  211·5

  —

  7·0

  69·1

  1,071·9

  Redbridge

  422·9

  103·0

  276·0

  7·3

  20·0

  723·6

  1,552·8

  Waltham Forest

  713·1

  88·5

  383·3

  15·0

  218·0

  988·7

  2,406·6

  Bexley

  322·2

  83·0

  129·8

  18·1

  —

  833·2

  1,386·3

  Greenwich

  811·2

  90·4

  316·9

  —

  64·0

  51·1

  1,333·6

  Bromley

  643·1

  77·3

  270·1

  —

  73·0

  823·5

  1,887·0

  Croydon

  562·5

  63·6

  292·2

  —

  1,061·8

  416·4

  2,396·5

  Kingston and Esher

  447·1

  59·4

  174·6

  —

  —

  696·5

  1,377·6

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  357·2

  35·3

  262·5

  —

  167·0

  37·5

  859·5

  Merton and Sutton

  744·9

  55·0

  282·1

  15·0

  946·7

  191·3

  2,235·0

  In-patient cases treated in the National Health Service, Outer London, 1986

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for younger disabled

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Total

  Barnet

  26,743

  4,831

  2,624

  51

  355

  1,111

  35,715

  Harrow

  21,352

  4,474

  1,234

  —

  —

  807

  27,867

  Hillingdon

  33,915

  3,899

  1,328

  39

  —

  256

  39,477

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  30,003

  5,132

  2,150

  —

  —

  792

  38,077

  Ealing

  13,257

  2,511

  791

  —

  —

  3,085

  19,644

  Brent

  16,224

  2,863

  1,889

  81

  113

  1,176

  22,346

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  38,069

  5,577

  1,532

  97

  322

  1,462

  47,059

  Enfield

  17,590

  4,116

  1,104

  63

  181

  527

  23,581

  Haringey

  17,494

  3,928

  1,765

  —

  3

  501

  23,691

  Redbridge

  13,438

  4,093

  1,038

  28

  1

  1,311

  19,909

  Waltham Forest

  28,724

  4,810

  3,741

  51

  200

  1,337

  38,863

  Bexley

  12,791

  4,015

  1,642

  253

  —

  1,593

  20,294

  Greenwich

  29,017

  4,490

  2,020

  —

  248

  583

  36,358

  Bromley

  21,278

  3,770

  2,367

  —

  213

  1,327

  28,955

  Croydon

  22,457

  5,056

  1,661

  —

  303

  1,932

  31,409

  Kingston and Esher

  19,203

  3,026

  1,325

  —

  —

  1,261

  24,815

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  14,002

  1,775

  1,793

  —

  75

  341

  17,986

  Merton and Sutton

  27,927

  4,145

  1,490

  34

  516

  835

  34,947

  In-patient average length of stay in 1986 for:

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for younger disabled

  Barnet

  8·5

  4·5

  65·4

  194·0

  Harrow

  7·4

  4·8

  43·2

  —

  Hillingdon

  8·3

  4·3

  51·8

  135·6

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  7·8

  4·8

  47·1

  —

  Ealing

  8·7

  5·0

  69·1

  —

  582
  (2) if he will list the total number of (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients treated in each of the outer London health districts in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) if he will list the average length of stay for in-patients in each of the outer London health districts.

  Mrs. Currie
  The tables show the available information. No information is available centrally on the number of beds used for intensive care treatment, or on the average lengths of stay of mental handicap and mental illness inpatients.
  583

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for younger disabled

  Brent

  15·8

  4·6

  49·6

  60·7

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  9·1

  5·4

  115·7

  116·2

  Enfield

  8·6

  6·2

  68·5

  95·6

  Haringey

  12·2

  5·3

  40·7

  —

  Redbridge

  9·6

  4·4

  94·5

  84·7

  Waltham Forest

  7·2

  4·3

  31·6

  68·0

  Bexley

  7·3

  5·7

  25·3

  15·9

  Greenwich

  8·1

  4·7

  56·1

  —

  Bromley

  8·3

  4·0

  45·0

  —

  Croydon

  7·4

  3·9

  56·9

  —

  Kingston and Esher

  7·2

  4·9

  45·7

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  7·3

  4·9

  330·8

  —

  Merton and Sutton

  7·7

  3·7

  63·6

  73·6

  New out-patients treated in the National Health Service, Outer London, 1986

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for younger disabled

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Total

  Barnet

  45,754

  4,895

  237

  —

  —

  1,269

  52,155

  Harrow

  28,817

  3,450

  85

  —

  3

  445

  32,800

  Hillingdon

  49,361

  3,750

  13

  —

  9

  913

  54,046

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  57,704

  6,509

  382

  —

  —

  1,944

  66,589

  Ealing

  23,080

  2,208

  266

  —

  —

  994

  26,548

  Brent

  37,127

  2,640

  12

  —

  15

  1,015

  40,809

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  61,411

  5,666

  48

  —

  —

  1,132

  68,257

  Enfield

  26,952

  3,250

  153

  —

  21

  460

  30,836

  Haringey

  37,990

  3,323

  235

  —

  17

  490

  42,055

  Redbridge

  26,889

  5,403

  254

  —

  92

  1,147

  33,785

  Waltham Forest

  43,047

  4,262

  314

  —

  8

  827

  48,458

  Bexley

  21,439

  3,668

  414

  —

  12

  662

  26,195

  Greenwich

  45,455

  4,196

  124

  —

  6

  985

  50,766

  Bromley

  35,875

  4,334

  237

  —

  —

  1,320

  41,766

  Croydon

  43,148

  4,051

  193

  —

  51

  1,619

  49,062

  Kingston and Esher

  33,863

  3,175

  217

  —

  —

  799

  38,054

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  21,275

  2,441

  428

  —

  16

  1,159

  25,319

  Merton and Sutton

  55,412

  4,058

  152

  —

  —

  1,366

  60,988

  Total attendances by out-patients, National Health Service, Outer London, 1986

  District Health Authority

  Acute

  Maternity

  Geriatric

  Units for younger disabled

  Mental handicap

  Mental illness

  Total

  Barnet

  182,996

  27,314

  863

  —

  —

  10,594

  221,767

  Harrow

  125,290

  25,252

  697

  —

  37

  4,606

  155,882

  Hillingdon

  200,822

  18,371

  41

  —

  106

  7,546

  226,886

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  220,383

  29,210

  2,001

  —

  —

  18,320

  269,914

  Ealing

  81,102

  13,273

  913

  —

  —

  9,390

  104,678

  Brent

  146,482

  15,603

  1,393

  —

  128

  7,434

  171,040

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  264,984

  32,524

  310

  —

  —

  7,701

  305,519

  Enfield

  106,932

  15,939

  881

  —

  476

  3,349

  127,577

  Haringey

  162,178

  18,129

  1,502

  —

  180

  4,735

  186,724

  Redbridge

  111,855

  26,036

  1,573

  —

  750

  8,354

  148,568

  Waltham Forest

  159,028

  23,186

  1,722

  —

  173

  3,608

  187,717

  Bexley

  84,031

  23,962

  1,673

  —

  85

  12,606

  122,357

  Greenwich

  195,964

  24,294

  1,007

  —

  67

  9,434

  230,766

  Bromley

  152,912

  23,562

  756

  —

  —

  10,964

  188,194

  Croydon

  158,526

  14,894

  1,243

  —

  346

  13,832

  188,841

  Kingston and Esher

  129,643

  15,093

  986

  —

  —

  6,567

  152,289

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  85,835

  12,957

  3,443

  —

  222

  12,672

  115,129

  Merton and Sutton

  224,601

  22,358

  1,132

  —

  —

  11,251

  259,342

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will extend the powers of general managers to bring hospital doctors under direct management.
  584
  Mr. Newton
  It is already the responsibility of health authorities to manage hospital doctors' contracts.

  Sheffield Health Authority
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give a breakdown for each of the years from 1979 until the latest year for which figures are available, by specialty, of the waiting lists for operations

  Number of patients on in-patient waiting list in Sheffield District Health Authority—surgical specialties–31st December—NHS hospitals.

  Hospital/specialty

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern General Hospital

  General surgery

  472

  710

  594

  789

  685

  706

  762

  733

  ENT

  —

  —

  70

  191

  202

  207

  254

  265

  Trau and orth

  709

  829

  1,562

  1,828

  1,668

  1,388

  1,303

  1,176

  Urology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Plastic surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,363

  Thoracic surgery

  188

  213

  144

  223

  194

  162

  212

  174

  Oral surgery

  73

  88

  119

  206

  156

  106

  117

  188

  Gynaecology

  225

  248

  180

  267

  187

  205

  147

  202

  The Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  General surgery

  1,508

  1,244

  1,272

  1,854

  1,783

  2,196

  1,636

  1,122

  ENT

  174

  167

  264

  516

  489

  316

  336

  281

  Trau and orth

  1,788

  1,701

  1,051

  1,533

  1,553

  1,609

  1,423

  1,072

  Ophthalmology

  639

  551

  653

  909

  651

  534

  582

  633

  Urology

  653

  712

  753

  874

  773

  596

  604

  607

  Plastic surgery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  45

  Thoracic surgery

  55

  28

  17

  23

  21

  15

  54

  65

  Oral surgery

  207

  209

  124

  246

  182

  144

  131

  123

  Neurosurgery

  168

  133

  115

  175

  145

  134

  157

  166

  Fulwood Hospital

  Plastic surgery

  1,883

  2,091

  2,401

  1,812

  1,589

  1,479

  1,333

  0

  Oral surgery

  63

  38

  66

  79

  86

  56

  61

  0

  Childrens Hospital

  ENT

  187

  158

  203

  297

  183

  74

  93

  65

  Trau and orth

  344

  168

  148

  151

  194

  173

  168

  154

  Urology

  17

  4

  3

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Plastic surgery

  87

  26

  136

  182

  150

  162

  204

  369

  Thoracic surgery

  20

  22

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oral surgery

  43

  12

  22

  57

  20

  13

  19

  18

  Paediatric surgery

  46

  24

  14

  18

  46

  48

  46

  49

  The Jessop Hospital for women

  Gynaecology

  686

  853

  697

  1,215

  923

  997

  925

  911

  Weston Park Hospital

  Radiotherapy

  27

  23

  29

  4

  13

  52

  41

  22

  Lodge Moor Hospital

  General surgery

  87

  106

  87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  —

  —

  —

  127

  126

  161

  160

  175

  Paediatric surgery

  10

  18

  12

  10

  25

  14

  3

  15

  King Edward VII Hospital

  Trau and orth

  201

  131

  121

  221

  359

  339

  319

  486

  Nether Edge Hospital

  Gynaecology

  76

  65

  73

  253

  124

  91

  92

  97

  Royal Infirmary

  ENT

  43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nurses' Pay
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the figures for the pay of nurses, at each level, both at the basic rate and at the higher level of average overtime worked, at 1 June 1979 and at the latest available date, showing percentage increases.
  586
  in each hospital for the area covered by Sheffield health authority; and what details he has of the waiting lists for examinations, tabulated in a similar manner.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table. No information is available centrally on the reasons for patients being on the waiting list.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. Rates of pay for nurses at 1 June 1979 and at the current level payable from 1 April 1987 are shown in the table.
  587

  Grade

  Basic pay

  Estimated average earnings

  Minimum of pay scale £ per annum

  Maximum of pay scale £ per annum

  Minimum of pay scale £ per annum

  Maximum of pay scale £ per annum

  Student Nurse:

  1 June 1979

  2,452

  2,667

  —1

  —1

  1 April 1987

  4,540

  5,170

  5,060

  5,760

  Percentage increase

  85·2

  93·9

  Nursing Auxiliary:

  1 June 1979

  2,507

  2,915

  —1

  —1

  1 April 1987

  4,565

  5,855

  5,700

  7,310

  Percentage increase

  82·0

  100·9

  Enrolled Nurse:

  1 June 1979

  2,850

  3,411

  —1

  —1

  1 April 1987

  6,250

  7,750

  7,390

  9,160

  Percentage increase

  119·3

  127·2

  Staff Nurse:

  1 June 1979

  3,150

  3,813

  —1

  —1

  1 April 1987

  7,300

  8,600

  8,510

  10,030

  Percentage increase

  131·7

  125·5

  Sister II:

  1 June 1979

  3,888

  4,949

  —1

  —1

  1 April 1987

  9,000

  12,000

  10,230

  13,600

  Percentage increase

  131·5

  142·5

  1 Average earnings data is not available for 1979.

  Hospitals (Building and Maintenance Costs)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals built in the last 10 years have cost more than 15 per cent. above the original estimate of construction cost; and what is the total amount of these overruns.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information held centrally on National Health Service building schemes in England, which relates to schemes started since 1980, indicates that five out of 36 schemes, each valued at over £5 million and with a total value of £315 million, started and completed since 1980, overran the contractual sum by more than 15 per cent. Subject to resolution of outstanding final accounts, the total amount of these overruns is estimated to be £12·4 million.

  Number of notifications of acute and meningococcal meningitis, Northern regional health authority and Northumberland district health authority, 1985–87

  Area

  1985

  1986

  19871

  A

  M

  A

  M

  A

  M

  Northern regional health authority

  56

  20

  127

  59

  153

  73

  Northumberland district health authority

  3

  2

  15

  3

  9

  5

  A Acute meningitis (all forms).

  M Meningococcal meningitis.

  1 Provisional.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many households in the Blyth valley area he estimates will lose payments they at present receive for heating bills with the implementation of the Social Security Act.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of meningitis have been reported in the Northern regional health authority and Northumberland district health authority areas in each year from 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  Meningitis may be caused by a number of different organisms. The hon. Member may be particularly interested in meningococcal meningitis: the table shows notifications of cases for this and for all forms of acute meningitis.

  Mr. Chris Scott
  I regret that no information is available concerning the number of households in the Blyth Valley area who are in receipt of supplementary benefit heating additions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of severely
  589
  disabled people currently receiving attendance allowance who will not receive severe disability premium as a result of its restriction to people living alone without carers who receive invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that of the 174,000 supplementary benefit claimants who receive attendance allowance, or whose partner or dependant does, 7,000 will receive the severe disability premium in income support. Similar information is not available for those not in receipt of income support who claim housing benefit.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of his Department's management training courses include sessions on equal opportunities for women; and what proportion of managers at grade 6 level and above working outside headquarters have received training on equal opportunities for women.

  Mrs. Currie
  Twenty management training courses cover equal opportunities for women issues; six include specific sessions on equal opportunities. Five social security regions have held management awareness seminars on equal opportunities. All managers at grade 6 and above are informed of Departmental policy and commitment to equal opportunities for women. The majority have attended management training courses or seminars.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, where a housing association provides residential care for elderly people, those residents who loan all but £3,000 of their capital to the housing association are allowed to receive full social security benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Only supplementary benefit operates a capital cut-off under the present system. Regulations provide for any sum deposited with a housing association, as defined in section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1957 or section 208(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, as a condition of occupying the home, to be disregarded. It is for the independent adjudication authorities to decide if this provision applies in the light of the facts of each case. From April, the same rule will apply to income support, housing benefit and family credit.

  Community Alarm Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if housing benefit is paid in respect of tenants or owner-occupiers' contributions to community alarm schemes in their own home under the present housing benefit regulations; and if it will be paid under the housing benefit regulations which come into effect on 1 April.

  Mr. Scott
  Under the present housing benefit regulations help with service charges can be provided through housing benefit for people in rented accommodation. There is no specific reference to alarm systems in the current housing benefit regulations, but the costs of this service can be met if the tenant has no option but to pay and the local authority considers that the service is "reasonably necessary for the proper enjoyment of the dwelling".
  590
  From April, the new regulations clarify existing policy by making it clear that housing benefit is available to help with the costs of alarm systems where they are provided in accommodation which is occupied by and specifically designed or adapted or otherwise particularly suitable for elderly, sick or disabled people.

  For owner-occupiers help with service charges is available through supplementary benefit — income support from April—on the same basis as the help given to tenants through housing benefit.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 10 areas in England which have seen(a) the greatest population growth and (b) the greatest population reduction, since 1965.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Thousands

  Local Authority Area (ranked by change)

  Resident Population

  Population change

  Mid-1965

  Mid-1986

  1965–86

  i) Greatest Growth

  Milton Keynes

  55

  162

  107

  Solihull

  140

  202

  62

  Huntingdonshire

  81

  142

  61

  Wokingham

  83

  141

  58

  Woodspring

  120

  178

  58

  Basingstoke and Deane

  81

  138

  57

  Peterborough

  98

  148

  50

  Basildon

  108

  157

  49

  The Wrekin

  83

  190

  47

  Chelmsford

  105

  150

  43

  ii) Greatest Reduction

  Liverpool

  695

  483

  -212

  Manchester

  617

  451

  -166

  Birmingham

  1,145

  1,004

  -141

  Westminster, City of

  267

  176

  -91

  Lambeth

  332

  245

  -87

  Southwark

  302

  216

  -86

  Kensington and Chelsea

  216

  137

  -79

  Islington

  244

  168

  -76

  Wandsworth

  327

  257

  -70

  Hackney

  252

  187

  -65

  Opticians
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those opticians in the north-east area of Manchester who are not routinely handing out general optical service prescriptions, identified in the summary of the National Health Service investigator's report.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Family Practitioner Committee is initiating service committee proceedings against three practitioners where the auditors' report provided some evidence of their failure to hand over prescriptions. It would be prejudicial to the practitioners concerned to publish their names.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of general practitioners per 1000 population for(a) England and Wales, (b) the west midlands, (c) north Staffordshire and (d) Stoke on Trent.

  (2) what is the average number and Wales, (b) west midlands, (c) north Staffordshire and (d) Stoke on Trent.
  591
  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not held centrally in respect of north Staffordshire or Stoke-on-Trent. Figures are available as at 1 October 1986, as follows:

  Number of general practitioners per 1,000 population

  Average number of patients per general practitioner

  England and Wales

  0·52

  2,033

  West Midlands Region

  0·51

  2,040

  Staffordshire Family

  Practitioner

  Committee (including North Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent)

  0·48

  2,105

  D and C Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the rate of deaths per 10,000 women having D and C operations in England and Wales in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available of(a) anaesthetic deaths arising directly or indirectly out of such operations, (b) deaths due to embolism directly or indirectly linked to such operations and (c) other deaths directly due to such operations; and if he will break down this rate by whether or not the D and C operation also involved an abortion.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the total number of D and C operations performed in England and Wales in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have such information as is available without incurring disproportionate costs as soon as possible.

  AIDS
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the special trust fund for HIV positive carriers to be run by the Haemophilia Society has yet been established; and when he expects the first applications for financial assistance to be invited.

  Mr. Newton
  Following close collaboration officials and officers of the Haemophilia Society, measures necessary to establish the special trust fund are nearing completion. The Haemophilia Society is already giving financial help on an interim basis to urgent cases to need. Applications for financial help from other haemophiliacs infected with HIV and their dependants are being accepted so that payments can be made as quickly as possible.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list by London health authority the total available patient beds for each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list by district health authority (a) the establishment figure of medical laboratory scientific officers for each year since 1979, (b) the number in post for each year since 1979, and (c) the number who have left the National Health Service in the last year;
  592
  (3) if he will list by district health authority the number of people on waiting lists for urgent and non-urgent operations for December of each year since 1982.

  Mr. Newton
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available centrally without incurring disproportionate costs as soon as possible.

  Benefits (Adjustment)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the system of flat rate compensation payment available to benefit claimants or as a result of the miscalculation of the retail prices index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to review the system of ex gratia payments we are making as a result of the error in the calculation of the RPI. We are making these payments, although we have no legal requirement to do so, to more than 12 million beneficiaries. The exercise is designed to combine as far as possible fairness with speed of payment.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review the position of benefit claimants in receipt of more than one benefit for which a flat rate compensation payment is available after the miscalculation of the retail prices index who have received only one payment because they have a combined order book.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. Having two benefits combined on one order book does not automatically mean that the claimant has suffered twice from the error in the retail prices index. The ex-gratia special payments fully compensate the great majority of people who have combined order books for two benefits, including the least well-off pensioners with supplementary pensions. Less than 10 per cent. of people with combined books will be undercompensated for the retail prices index error because of the method of payment.

  Child Care and Family Services
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be issuing a consultation paper on his proposals concerning standards for day care and residential holidays for children aged between five and 16 years referred to in the White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services".

  Mr. Newton
  The Department, jointly with the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, has today issued a consultation paper "Day Care and Residential Holidays for Children over Five". It is being sent to local authorities including non-metropolitan district councils in England; voluntary bodies active in the child care, disabled, mental handicap, educational, sporting and recreational fields; and organisations representing medical, nursing and social work interests.

  The Government have decided that a full registration system which would apply to all activities provided for children aged between five and 16 would be inappropriate and impractical. It is primarily the responsibility of parents to satisfy themselves about the adequacy of the arrangements to which they entrust their children. Whilst we recognise that children need to be protected from harm, we believe that out-of-school or holiday play schemes need

  593
  a lower level of control than residential holidays where children are away from their parents for some time. The Government are seeking views on two options: the introduction of a limited registration scheme (for which legislation would be necessary). This would be operated by local authorities and apply to residential holidays for groups of children for up to 27 days; or the establishment of voluntary codes of practice to be drawn up by private or voluntary organisations. These would cover day care and residential activities.

  Similar consultation exercises are being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of geriatric patients in the central Nottingham health authority area for each year from 1979–1987 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of geriatric patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in the Central Nottingham Health Authority 1for each year from 1979 to 1986 (latest available).

  Year

  In-patient discharges and deaths

  Out-patient attendances

  Regular day patients

  1979

  2,381

  1,686

  4,903

  1980

  2,448

  2,056

  5,823

  1981

  2,458

  1,878

  5,723

  1982

  2,687

  2,042

  5,240

  1983

  2,750

  2,034

  5,439

  Restrictions of accident and emergency service

  Period of restriction

  Time

  Day

  Date

  Time involved

  Reason

  Brook Hospital1

  Saturday

  14 February

  24 hours

  All staffed ITU beds occupied

  Sunday

  15 February

  Saturday pm

  28 March

  36 hours (approx.)

  All staffed ITU beds occupied

  Monday am

  30 March

  Friday

  12 June

  24 hours

  All staffed ITU beds occupied

  Saturday

  13 June

  6 pm

  Friday

  19 June

  63 hours

  Breakdown of ITU ventilators

  9 am

  Monday

  22 June

  1 pm

  Wednesday

  8 July

  44 hours

  All staffed beds occupied

  9 am

  Friday

  10 July

  Tuesday

  21 July

  24 hours

  All staffed beds occupied

  Wednesday

  22 July

  Wednesday

  29 July

  24 hours

  All staffed beds occupied

  Thursday

  30 July

  9.30 am

  Wednesday

  19 August

  47½ hours

  All staffed beds occupied

  9 am

  Friday

  21 August

  9 am to

  Wednesday

  9 september

  7½hours

  All staffed beds occupied

  4.30 pm

  594

  Year

  In-patient discharges and deaths

  Out-patient attendances

  Regular day-patients

  1984

  2,555

  2,420

  5,680

  1985

  2,784

  3,127

  6,005

  1986

  2,701

  3,680

  7,065

  1 Prior to NHS re-structuring in 1982 was Mansfield and Newark HD.

  Accident and Emergency Services (Greenwich)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions and for what reasons either the Greenwich district hospital or the Brook hospital have been closed to accident and emergency admissions over the past 12 months.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The table lists periods of restriction to the accident and emergency departments of the Brook and Greenwich district hospitals over the past year and indicates the reasons for them.

  Unplanned closures have declined markedly from their summer peak, which reflects Greenwich health authority's commitment to avoid them in future and to provide a continuous accident and emergency service from these two hospitals.

  When the Brook hospital accident and emergency department has been closed, patients have been taken to the nearby department at Greenwich district general hospital. When there has been a restricted service at the Greenwich DGH department, the reverse has happened. There have been no simultaneous restrictions of service at the two departments.

  Greenwich health authority is also covered by the new London emergency bed monitoring service.
  595

  Period of restriction

  Time

  Day

  Date

  Time involved

  Reason

  1 pm

  Thursday

  10 September

  68 hours

  Shortage of nursing staff

  7 pm

  Monday

  14 Septemper

  Greenwich District General Hospital1

  Tuesday

  24 February

  24 hours

  Shortage of nursing/medical staff

  Wednesday

  25 February

  Saturday

  11 July

  24 hours

  To enable new piped medical gas system to be installed in operating theatres

  Saturday

  15 August

  24 hours

  9 pm to

  Tuesday

  14 July

  7 hours

  Shortage of medical staff (holiday period)

  4.30 pm

  6 pm to

  Monday

  20 July

  4 hours

  Shortage of medical staff (holiday period)

  4 pm

  Thursday

  30 July

  171/2 hours

  Shortage of medical staff (holiday period)

  9.30 pm

  Friday

  31 July

  1 Intensive treatment beds—There are 8 ITU beds at the Brook Hospital, 2 of which are at present closed because of shortage of nursing staff. Also available are six coronary care beds which, while not 'intensive' beds offer a high level of clinical care.

  2 Intensive treatement beds—Thereare 10 ITU beds at Greenwich District General Hospital, two of which are at present closed because of shortage of nursing staff.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each regional health authority, district health authority, and special health authority, and

  Number of attendances by private patients at NHS hospitals in 1983 and 1986.

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular day patients

  District Health Authority

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Hartlepool

  218

  232

  109

  155

  —

  —

  North Tees

  265

  377

  55

  33

  —

  —

  South Tees

  846

  2,238

  277

  307

  —

  —

  East Cumbria

  452

  657

  239

  152

  —

  —

  South Cumbria

  348

  661

  108

  163

  —

  —

  West Cumbria

  106

  98

  21

  1

  —

  —

  Darlington

  67

  273

  76

  122

  —

  —

  Durham

  405

  1,177

  17

  163

  —

  —

  North West Durham

  238

  216

  61

  88

  —

  —

  South West Durham

  190

  434

  36

  44

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  385

  646

  54

  43

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  185

  93

  188

  55

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,412

  2,956

  309

  235

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  20

  21

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  23

  126

  106

  110

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  441

  166

  274

  241

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  5,581

  10,350

  1,950

  1,933

  0

  0

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Hull

  447

  1,086

  461

  120

  —

  —

  East Yorkshire

  17

  46

  172

  163

  —

  —

  Grimsby

  234

  442

  306

  21

  —

  —

  Scunthorpe

  1,479

  1,417

  114

  106

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  120

  338

  69

  34

  —

  —

  York

  1

  258

  106

  79

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  42

  87

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Harrogate

  —

  108

  21

  38

  —

  —

  Bradford

  3,037

  2,075

  453

  148

  —

  —

  Airedale

  883

  752

  257

  273

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  988

  421

  442

  80

  —

  —

  596
  for England as a whole, the number of attendances in 1983 and 1986 by (a) private out-patients, (b) private day cases and (c) private regular day patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.
  597

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular day patients

  District Health

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  Authority

  Huddersfield

  45

  436

  54

  2

  —

  —

  Dewsbury

  22

  34

  159

  82

  —

  —

  Leeds Western

  2,540

  3,549

  26

  201

  —

  —

  Leeds Eastern

  105

  426

  19

  27

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  872

  543

  241

  65

  —

  —

  Pontefract

  —

  69

  249

  94

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  10,832

  12,087

  3,156

  1,540

  0

  0

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  North Derbyshire

  66

  518

  336

  188

  —

  —

  Southern Derbyshire

  758

  1,539

  301

  334

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  1,810

  681

  1,066

  —

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  3,434

  5,210

  105

  198

  —

  —

  South Lincolnshire

  950

  1,514

  242

  282

  —

  —

  Bassetlaw

  —

  157

  —

  195

  —

  —

  Central Nottinghamshire

  68

  127

  207

  43

  ——

  ——

  Nottingham

  326

  162

  667

  130

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  28

  332

  204

  120

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  296

  1,730

  17

  31

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  2,136

  2,626

  104

  125

  —

  1

  Regional Health Authority Total

  8,062

  15,725

  2,864

  2,712

  0

  1

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Cambridge

  1,568

  3,968

  10

  14

  —

  —

  Peterborough

  607

  841

  138

  59

  —

  —

  West Suffolk

  342

  380

  87

  101

  —

  —

  East Suffolk

  774

  2,804

  5

  120

  —

  —

  Norwich

  1,360

  1,451

  294

  160

  —

  —

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  353

  796

  96

  117

  ——

  ——

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  80

  1,765

  248

  410

  —

  —

  Huntingdon

  95

  240

  8

  67

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  5,179

  12,245

  886

  1,048

  0

  0

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  North Bedfordshire

  654

  1,844

  75

  24

  —

  —

  South Bedfordshire

  SOI

  287

  152

  115

  ——

  —

  North Hertfordshire

  705

  572

  77

  49

  —

  —

  East Hertfordshire

  1,902

  1,678

  174

  202

  —

  —

  North West Hertfordshire

  17

  62

  309

  203

  —

  —

  South West Hertfordshire

  356

  169

  98

  88

  —

  —

  Barnet

  5,891

  4,877

  144

  70

  —

  —

  Harrow

  705

  563

  24

  10

  16

  —

  Hillingdon

  606

  1,162

  207

  157

  —

  —

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  1,397

  2,474

  280

  239

  —

  —

  Ealing

  84

  62

  28

  35

  —

  —

  Brent

  513

  361

  2

  4

  —

  —

  Paddington and North Kensington

  2,231

  2,905

  129

  89

  —

  —

  Riverside

  10,762

  8,387

  515

  636

  —

  39

  Regional Health Authority Total

  26,324

  25,403

  2,214

  1,921

  16

  39

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  598 599

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular day patients

  District Health Authority

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  Basildon and Thurrock

  762

  648

  355

  317

  —

  1

  Mid Essex

  1,696

  3,362

  637

  653

  —

  —

  North East Essex

  3,619

  7,012

  89

  122

  —

  —

  West Essex

  5,185

  4,588

  197

  200

  —

  —

  Southend

  1,758

  1,155

  317

  199

  —

  —

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  3,344

  5,103

  273

  255

  —

  —

  Hampstead

  5,209

  4,734

  160

  161

  —

  —

  Bloomsbury

  4,320

  5,938

  288

  317

  —

  —

  Islington

  181

  305

  36

  107

  —

  —

  City and Hackney

  14

  105

  16

  1

  —

  —

  Newham

  18

  330

  4

  24

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  6,363

  5,945

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  317

  391

  163

  131

  —

  —

  Haringey

  627

  435

  107

  120

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  3,924

  3,362

  78

  37

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  542

  349

  40

  10

  35

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  37,879

  43,762

  2,760

  2,654

  35

  1

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Brighton

  428

  511

  4

  43

  —

  —

  Eastbourne

  934

  1,003

  130

  138

  —

  —

  Hastings

  271

  1,494

  47

  63

  28

  —

  South East Kent

  352

  681

  108

  74

  —

  —

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1,864

  2,195

  105

  216

  —

  —

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1,332

  849

  128

  77

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  1,273

  2,060

  154

  36

  2

  —

  Medway

  822

  681

  242

  41

  —

  —

  Tunbridge Wells

  2,165

  3,494

  786

  456

  —

  43

  Bexley

  3,452

  2,729

  267

  187

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  2,436

  1,166

  167

  110

  —

  —

  Bromley

  538

  773

  371

  107

  —

  —

  West Lambeth

  269

  348

  198

  213

  —

  —

  Camberwell

  —

  —

  240

  313

  —

  —

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  —

  2,423

  60

  217

  —

  10

  Regional Health Authority Total

  16,109

  20,407

  3,007

  2,291

  30

  53

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  North West Surrey

  3,731

  368

  419

  327

  —

  —

  West Surrey/North East Hants

  780

  819

  205

  290

  —

  —

  South West Surrey

  2,452

  3,944

  75

  185

  —

  —

  Mid Surrey

  1,688

  145

  526

  101

  —

  —

  East Surrey

  110

  329

  51

  16

  —

  —

  Chichester

  918

  808

  316

  130

  —

  —

  Mid Downs

  2,402

  821

  253

  180

  —

  —

  Worthing

  24

  123

  62

  63

  —

  —

  Croydon

  12

  152

  98

  110

  —

  —

  Kingston and Esher

  520

  521

  66

  138

  —

  —

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  462

  540

  9

  29

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  1,075

  950

  109

  159

  —

  —

  Merton and Sutton

  706

  731

  404

  129

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  14,880

  10,251

  2,593

  1,857

  0

  0

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  East Dorset

  175

  233

  42

  27

  —

  —

  West Dorset

  354

  304

  11

  13

  —

  —

  600 601

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular day patients

  District Health Authority

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1,226

  1,509

  580

  240

  —

  —

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  43

  2,231

  261

  697

  —

  —

  Winchester

  —

  —

  115

  108

  —

  —

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  —

  —

  202

  92

  —

  —

  Salisbury

  143

  729

  40

  24

  —

  —

  Swindon

  3,068

  1,286

  186

  77

  —

  —

  Bath

  84

  564

  98

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  30

  75

  25

  1

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  5,123

  6,931

  1,560

  1,279

  0

  0

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  East Berkshire

  340

  604

  7

  89

  163

  418

  West Berkshire

  —

  2,032

  112

  697

  —

  —

  Aylesbury Vale

  961

  2,475

  190

  168

  —

  —

  Wycombe

  1,364

  1,173

  6

  8

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  129

  249

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Kettering

  1,803

  3,789

  369

  448

  —

  —

  Northampton

  1,040

  1,379

  140

  145

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  3,428

  47

  19

  —

  48

  Regional Health Authority Total

  5,637

  15,129

  871

  1,577

  163

  466

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Bristol and Weston

  305

  2,427

  83

  83

  —

  —

  Frenchay

  129

  346

  27

  12

  —

  —

  Southmead

  ——

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  384

  669

  99

  46

  37

  —

  Exeter

  1

  452

  76

  42

  —

  1

  North Devon

  454

  770

  63

  75

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  Torbay

  1,345

  70

  262

  77

  —

  —

  Cheltenham

  286

  170

  131

  201

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  385

  429

  284

  115

  —

  —

  Somerset

  270

  501

  210

  193

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  3,559

  5,860

  1,274

  844

  37

  1

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  814

  393

  17

  18

  ——

  ——

  Herefordshire

  ——

  ——

  28

  7

  —

  —

  Kidderminster and District

  —

  137

  190

  67

  —

  —

  Worcester and District

  91

  81

  620

  34

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  433

  843

  128

  109

  —

  16

  Mid-Staffordshire

  192

  758

  194

  158

  —

  —

  North Staffordshire

  739

  3,159

  457

  352

  —

  —

  South East Staffordshire

  2,411

  1,915

  280

  220

  Rugby

  799

  1,024

  102

  135

  —

  —

  North Warwickshire

  173

  458

  78

  94

  —

  —

  South Warwickshire

  28

  26

  101

  128

  —

  —

  Central Birmingham

  94

  1,470

  270

  82

  —

  —

  East Birmingham

  —

  263

  30

  17

  —

  —

  North Birmingham

  —

  —

  279

  16

  —

  —

  South Birmingham

  161

  188

  25

  81

  —

  —

  West Birmingham

  461

  258

  131

  37

  —

  —

  Coventry

  33

  53

  203

  288

  36

  37

  Dudley

  3

  33

  344

  317

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  462

  1,406

  153

  101

  —

  —

  602 603

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular day patients

  District Health Authority

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  Solihull

  3

  384

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Walsall

  474

  1,199

  273

  229

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  424

  1,013

  44

  38

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  7,795

  15,061

  3,949

  2,531

  36

  53

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Chester

  203

  237

  5

  19

  —

  —

  Crewe

  1,273

  3,554

  496

  808

  —

  —

  Halton

  9

  244

  —

  41

  —

  —

  Macclesfield

  345

  365

  95

  274

  28

  —

  Warrington

  90

  528

  401

  392

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  351

  943

  186

  223

  —

  —

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3,307

  1,967

  257

  222

  —

  —

  Southport and Formby

  —

  460

  65

  198

  —

  —

  South Sefton

  2

  542

  14

  105

  —

  —

  Wirral

  1,182

  1,414

  102

  55

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  6,762

  10,254

  1,621

  2,337

  28

  —

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Lancaster

  106

  377

  216

  21

  —

  —

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  279

  495

  145

  56

  —

  —

  Preston

  1,166

  1,078

  324

  544

  —

  —

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  18

  213

  3

  55

  —

  —

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  322

  175

  248

  230

  West Lancashire

  1,463

  2,020

  70

  111

  —

  —

  Chorley and South Ribble

  —

  101

  6

  9

  —

  Bolton

  —

  275

  238

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  489

  1,116

  403

  421

  —

  —

  North Manchester

  402

  507

  21

  21

  —

  —

  Central Manchester

  41

  164

  173

  514

  —

  —

  South Manchester

  9,715

  14,544

  296

  214

  —

  —

  Oldham

  780

  876

  75

  89

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  339

  380

  4

  14

  —

  —

  Salford

  335

  2,028

  37

  57

  —

  —

  Stockport

  266

  572

  42

  46

  —

  —

  Tameside and Glossop

  401

  172

  46

  80

  —

  —

  Trafford

  177

  153

  61

  58

  —

  —

  Wigan

  236

  1,631

  279

  291

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  16,535

  26,877

  2,687

  2,831

  —

  —

  Special Health Authorities

  Hospital for Sick Children

  1,697

  2,024

  183

  201

  —

  —

  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  1,962

  1,710

  82

  3

  —

  —

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  —

  1,493

  37

  19

  —

  —

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  120

  103

  7

  5

  —

  —

  604 605

  Out-patients

  Day cases

  Regular dav patients

  District Health Authority

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  3,390

  3,335

  5

  107

  —

  —

  The Royal Marsden Hospitals

  10,044

  10,537

  220

  112

  74

  9

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  3,016

  3,557

  386

  423

  —

  —

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  282

  398

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Regional Health Authority Total

  20,511

  23,157

  920

  870

  74

  9

  England Total

  190,768

  253,499

  32,312

  28,225

  419

  623

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of lorries and commercial vehicles, the percentage exported and the

  Trends in the commercial vehicle output: United Kingdom

  Production of lorries

  Exports as percentage of total

  Importers share of United Kingdom market

  Production of commercial vehicles

  Exports as percentage of total

  Importers share of United Kingdom market

  (Units: thousands)

  (Units: thousands)

  percentage

  1958

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  312·9

  38·7

  n/a

  1960

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  458·0

  36·7

  n/a

  1965

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  455·2

  38·3

  n/a

  1970

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  457·5

  41·6

  4·0

  1975

  n/a

  n/a

  3·8

  380·7

  49·0

  11·2

  1979

  111

  50·6

  13·1

  408·4

  39·8

  23·2

  1980

  99

  52·9

  14·9

  389·2

  40·2

  24·1

  1981

  55

  62·6

  17·0

  229·6

  49·6

  31·4

  1982

  60

  48·6

  20·7

  268·8

  34·4

  29·5

  1983

  48

  39·0

  24·2

  244·5

  25·7

  34·1

  1984

  45

  29·6

  26·7

  224·8

  22·2

  36·2

  1985

  48

  31·9

  28·5

  266·0

  24·7

  36·7

  1986

  35

  26·4

  31·8

  228·7

  21·8

  39·6

  1987

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1246·5

  231·9

  38·1

  n/a = Not Available.

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimated.

  Trends in West German commercial vehicle output

  West Germany

  Production of commercial vehicles

  Exports as percentage of total

  Importers share of West German market

  (Units: thousands)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1958

  188·4

  54·8

  n.a.

  1960

  238·4

  49·3

  n.a.

  1965

  242·7

  44·6

  n.a.

  1970

  314·4

  56·5

  n.a.

  1975

  278·4

  610

  n.a.

  1979

  317·2

  57·9

  15·4

  1980

  357·6

  560

  n.a.

  1981

  319·2

  63·9

  n.a.

  1982

  301·2

  68·9

  19·8

  1983

  276·8

  61·5

  n.a.

  606
  proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958,1960, 1965,1970,1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Production of commercial vehicles

  Exports as percentage of total

  Importers share of West German market

  (Units: thousands)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1984

  255·3

  63·6

  22·8

  1985

  279·2

  66·0

  24·2

  1986

  286·1

  69·3

  n.a.

  Note: n.a. = not available.

  Data only readily available for all commercial vehicles (including lorries).

  Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.
  607

  Trends in Japanese commercial vehicle output Japan

  Production of commercial vehicles

  Exports as percentage of total

  Importers share of Japanese market

  (Units: thousands)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1958

  138

  5·5

  n.a.

  1960

  316

  4·0

  n.a.

  1965

  1,179

  7·9

  n.a.

  1970

  2,110

  14·5

  n.a.

  1975

  2,373

  35·8

  n.a.

  1979

  3,460

  42·2

  0·0

  1980

  4,004

  50·4

  0·0

  1981

  4,206

  50·0

  0·0

  1982

  3,850

  47·3

  0·0

  1983

  3,960

  47·1

  0·0

  1984

  4,392

  48·5

  0·0

  1985

  4,624

  49·8

  0·0

  1986

  4,450

  45·7

  0·0

  Note: n.a. = not available.

  Data only readily available for all commercial vehicles (including lorries).

  Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give imports as a percentage of home demand in 1987 or over the maximum available period of 1987 projected on a yearly basis for(a) all manufactures, (b) chemicals, (c) motor vehicles, (d) textiles, (e) clothing and footwear, food and so on, (f) metals, (g) metal manufactures N. C. S., (h) mechanical engineers, (i) electrical engineering and (j) office/data processing instruments.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on import penetration is contained in Business Monitor MQ12 "Import penetration and export sales ratios for manufacturing industry", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the regional distribution of civil research and development expenditure by Government and industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not available and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the number of people who have died of asphyxiation from accidentally swallowing a pen top, how many of these were children, and how many of these accidents occurred in school.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information is available for England and Wales from three sources: (i) a study of all children's deaths registered as inhalation of a foreign body between 1964 and 1984, (ii) the home accident deaths database for 1982–1985, and (iii) a newspaper cutting service (though the latter is not regarded as exhaustive).

  A total of 10 cases is known to my Department. All the victims were children. Two of the accidents occurred in schools, the other eight at home.
  608
  The following table gives details of the extent of information available.

  Deaths in England and Wales from asphyxiation following swallowing of a pen top

  Year

  Children under 15 years

  Adults aged 15 + years

  At home

  At school

  Elsewhere

  At home

  Elsewhere

  1964

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1965

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1966

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1967

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1968

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1969

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1970

  3

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1971

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1972

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1973

  1

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1974

  1

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1975

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1976

  1

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1977

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1978

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1979

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1981

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1982

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1983

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1984

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1—

  1985

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  1—

  1986

  Data not yet available

  1987

  Data not yet available, 1 known case of a child at schoool

  1 — = No data.

  Note:

  Where the table indicates that no data are available this means that while the Department is not aware of any cases, an exhaustive study of death registrations has not been made.

  British Steel Corporation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is in a position to announce a revised external financing limit for the British Steel Corporation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As hon. Members will know, BSC's performance in the first half of this year has been impressive. I am glad to say that the corporation's latest forecasts for the rest of the current financial year indicate that a reduction in the EFL from £66 million to minus £300 million is practicable, and this change has now been made.

  EC (Research Council)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress was made at the meeting of the Research Council of European Community Ministers on 21 December 1987, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Community's Council of Ministers (Research) met on 21 December in Brussels: I represented Her Majesty's Government.

  The Council adopted a revision to the 1985–89 programme on radiation protection. This revision will provide a sum of 10 million ecu (£7 million) for additional work related to the Community's response to the Chernobyl accident.

  The Council also adopted common positions on the ESPRIT II programme in information technology and on a revision to the BRITE programme in industrial technology.
  609
  ESPRIT II is the largest single programme in the Community's 1987–90 framework programme for research and development. ESPRIT II will, over five years, provide 1600 million ecu (£1120 million) of Community funding for projects in microelectronics and peripheral technologies, information processing systems and application technologies. The same amount of funding will he provided by the industrial partners and other contractors in the ESPRIT projects. The United Kingdom Government expect the ESPRIT II programme to make a major contribution to the research needs of the information technology industry.

  The revision to the BRITE programme will provide a further 60 million ecu (£42 million) to support projects in industrial technologies such as wear and resistance, joining technologies, polymers and composite materials and flexible materials. As with ESPRIT, the Community funding is matched by similar contributions from contracting partners.

  The United Kingdom has participated fully in this rapid progress towards the implementation of specific programmes within the framework programme. This underlines our commitment to the principle of collaborative research within the Community on programmes which are well defined and meet clear Community needs.

  The Research Council also held a first debate on the Commission's proposals for the future programme of the joint research centre. The debate revealed a large measure of agreement that the JRC is in need of very considerable reform. I am hopeful that progress will be made towards this objective over the next few months.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to make public the financial structure and financial situation of Airbus Industrie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: Airbus Industrie is Groupement d'interet economique (grouping of mutual economic interest) established under French law. The Members of the partnership are Aerospatiale of France, with 37·9 per cent. participation, Deutsche Airbus of Germany, also with 37·9 per cent., British Aerospace of the United Kingdom, with 20 per cent. and CASA of Spain with 4·2 per cent. As a groupement d'interet economique, Airbus Industrie is not required to publish accounts. The results of the Airbus business of the partner companies are, of course, included in the annual accounts which these companies publish under their national laws.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the role which he has given to his special adviser Sir Jeffrey Stirling in relation to the Airbus project.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The Governments of the four Airbus partner countries have recently appointed a small group of wise men to consider the organisation of the Airbus programme. This step reinforces the continuous efforts of the partner companies, including British Aerospace, to improve the efficiency of the organisation. I have asked Sir Jeffrey Sterling to act as the United Kingdom member of this group.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received 610
  concerning the provision of further subsidies for Airbus projects following the decline in the value of the dollar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988] The United Kingdom Government have provided launch aid to British Aerospace for the Airbus A320 programme, and have agreed to provide it for the Airbus A330/A340 programmes. Launch aid is not a subsidy and is repayable with a real rate of return to the Government. Senior representatives of British Aerospace have discussed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the effects on their Airbus business of the decline in the value of the dollar. They have not submitted an application for further launch aid.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy that .Airbus Industrie should become a public limited company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: No. The partners in Airbus Industrie are British Aerospace and its partner companies in France, Germany and Spain. It is their responsibility to take any decisions about the future organisation of the Airbus programme. Airbus partner Governments have an interest in organisational questions as they have provided financial support to the programme. This is why they have asked the group of wise men to consider the matter and to advise them.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent discussions his Department or its representatives have had with the partner companies of Airbus Industrie or their sponsoring Governments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: My Department has regular meetings at ministerial and official level with other Airbus partner Governments, and also with British Aerospace arid Airbus Industrie. A wide range of topics of mutual interest is discussed at these meetings.

  Household Glass (Accident Statistics)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many children have been injured in accidents involving household glass and glazing in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many accidents involving household glass resulted in personal injury for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 1 February 1988] The following estimates of the numbers of accidents involving household glass that were treated at hospitals in England and Wales from 1980 to 1987 have been made from sample data collected by my Department's home accident surveillance system. No other data are available.

  Year

  Estimated numbers of accidents children under 15 years

  Total

  1980

  52,000

  133,000

  1981

  36,000

  102,000

  1982

  42,000

  113,000

  1983

  44,000

  124,000

  1984

  45,000

  126,000

  611

  Year

  Estimated numbers of accidents children under 15 years

  Total

  1985

  39,000

  122,000

  1986

  34,000

  110,000

  11987

  33,000

  110,000

  1 provisional estimates.

  These figures include the following articles: windows, doors containing glass, unfitted panes, glass cabinets, mirrors, bottles, jars, dishes, drinking glasses, binoculars, greenhouses and unspecified glass, even though the glass part of the article may not have been involved in the accident. Only some of the accidents will have involved broken glass.

  Year

  Invest in Britain bureau

  Grants to English RDOs ('£)

  NEDC/NDC1

  Norwida/ Inward2

  YHDA

  DCBD

  WMIDA

  Promotional effort for United Kingdom

  NE Region

  NW Region

  YH Region

  Devon and Cornwall

  WM Region

  1978–79

  290,000

  275,000

  150,000

  33,000

  16,000

  —

  1979–80

  236,000

  365,000

  149,000

  68,000

  45,000

  —

  1980–81

  196,000

  274,000

  115,000

  62,000

  50,000

  —

  1981–82

  72,000

  230,000

  129,000

  65,000

  55,000

  —

  1982–83

  277,000

  250,000

  140,000

  70,000

  60,000

  —

  1983–84

  598,000

  850,000

  178,000

  163,000

  110,000

  50,000

  1984–85

  829,000

  975,000

  130,000

  518,000

  152,000

  100,000

  1985–86

  1,734,000

  760,000

  187,000

  400,000

  210,000

  130,000

  1986–87

  1,063,000

  868,000

  263,000

  499,000

  301,000

  250,000

  1987–883

  1,231,000

  1,088,000

  380,000

  600,000

  320,000

  320,000

  1 NDC took over from the NEDC with effect from 1 April 1987. The grant figure for the NDC in 1987–88 includes £180,000 for a core programme of activities aimed at regional regeneration.

  2 Inward took over from Norwida with effect from 1 October 1985.

  3 Budget.

  Funding for the promotional agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for their respective Secretaries of State.

  In addition, my Department has spent the following amounts in the past three years on the promotion of the regional development grant and regional selective assistance schemes in England, and on the printing of booklets on the same schemes for use throughout Great Britain:

  Regional Development
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much money has been spent in each of the last 10 years by his Department or agencies responsible to his Department on attracting industry from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) overseas into (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) the English regions, by region.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau promotes the United Kingdom as a whole as a location for overseas investment, and the Department also provides grants to five English regional development organisations similarly to promote their respective regions. The total amount of money my Department has spent in each of the last 10 years on promotional programmes, and on the regional development organisations, is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1985–86

  77,000

  1986–87

  104,000

  1987–88 to date

  71,000

  Detailed records are unavailable for earlier years.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
Lord Sieff of Brimpton—Took the Oath.

Westminster Pier: Proposed Development
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the impact on the environment of the proposed new Westminster Pier development.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a planning application for a new pier is currently with Westminster City Council, which is the local planning authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was recently asked to call in this application for his own decision, and after most careful consideration decided not to intervene. In arriving at his decision my right honourable friend took account of the various issues raised by the proposed development, including its impact on the environment. He concluded that Westminster City Council was well aware of the issues involved in this sensitive location and should be left to determine the application.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this is a two-storey floating tourist trap which at high tide will come above the tops of the lamp posts on the embankment. Can the Government tell us what advice they have received from their statutory advisers in these matters, English Heritage? What steps have they taken to consult either House of Parliament, but especially this House, about their decision not to call in the application?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, English Heritage advised on the listed building consent, but as that is a matter which is before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I cannot comment further on it.
As to the advice which has been given, I understand that the House of Commons Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee resolved yesterday to endorse its predecessor's resolution of 30th March 1987 and approve in principle the revised plans for the new Westminster Pier, as submitted by the Thames Water Authority. This resolution now goes for approval by the House of Commons Services Committee, which is meeting later this afternoon. I understand that no comment has been submitted to the equivalent committee in your Lordships' House.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the design of this hideous pier has been before the Royal Fine Art Commission, in which I should declare my interest, as chairman, for 18 months? We have found it totally unacceptable. Will the Minister, even after what he has said, use his influence with the Secretary of State for the Environment so that we can get a pier there which will respect and not destroy one of the most beautiful views in the kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, quite rightly, has made full representations to Westminster City Council, which is the planning authority on this matter.
Lord Strabolgi: Yes, my Lords; but as this is a site of national importance why should it be left to Westminster City Council? Will the Secretary of State not change his mind? Are the Government relinquishing all responsibility?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. Governments of various parties over the years have delegated powers to local authorities, who have been able to undertake those powers quite responsibly. My right honourable friend has given this matter careful consideration, as I said in my original Answer, and he also gave the reasons his decision was made.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, it is not a question of whether there should be a pier. Why must it be such a damned ugly one? In this case, we have the advantage that the site has been drawn and painted by one of the greatest artists of all time, Monet. Could we not get the Monet pictures of this lovely site, sketch in the pier and see what it looks like? Could we not then sketch in something else and see whether we can get something which would look better? We have a great basis to work on, and we should not rush.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite able to make representations to Westminster City Council. He has doubtless seen sketches in the planning application. I remind the House that Westminster City Council has to have regard, as all local authorities have to have regard in considering the environmental impact in such a sensitive location, to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is there not clear evidence that Westminster City Council is either unwilling or unable to exercise its responsibilities as a planning authority for such a sensitive site? I do not wish to reopen in full the subject of the existence of the GLC, but I recall for the Government that when a similar question arose under the GLC about 10 years ago concerning the dilapidation and possibly horrific replacement of Westminster Pier, my noble friend Lady Denington bought the pier for the GLC in order to avoid such a situation. Is it not extraordinary that the applicant in this matter should be Sir Christopher Lever? He is chairman of London

987
Tourist Board, vice-chairman of Thames Water and chairman of Thames Line, the boat operators.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course this matter is up to Westminster City Council when it looks at all the facts and indeed the planning application. It must bear in mind its responsibilities under the various planning Acts, some of which I have already mentioned. I am sure that the council will consider the matter and indeed your Lordships' representations made in this debate today.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the Westminster City Council voters, of whom I am one having owned property in that area for more than 50 years, have never been consulted about this matter? We have never been asked whether we approved of it. We have had nothing to do with it at all. The first I heard of the matter was when I saw the drawing that was circulated. The city council has not consulted the electors at all.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that there has been considerable concern voiced about this proposed development. Indeed my noble friend said that it had been going on for 18 months. I am sure that local authorities would not be in a position to consult each of their electors on any planning application and particularly on one such as this which goes wider than just the ratepayers and electors of the Westminster City Council.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that successive Secretaries of State have called in far less significant planning applications than this one? In view of the opinions expressed by noble Lords in all parts of the House will the Minister convey the disquiet felt by them and by the House as a whole about this decision? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether he will take account of the interest of Parliament in this site and its great historic significance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very pleased of course to convey the feelings of the House to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if this pier is built the words of Wordsworth should be amended to:
"Earth hath not anything to show less fair"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note the comments of my noble friend on that.

Social Workers: Training
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when a decision can be expected on the report submitted
988
by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work for an extended and improved course for social workers, bearing in mind the recommendations made in the reports on Jasmine Beckford and Kimberley Carlile.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, Government departments are currently giving urgent consideration to the proposals submitted by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work for the reform of social work training. We hope to be in a position to give our response to the central council by the spring of this year.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. We very much hope that the response will be in the affirmative for a grant for the training of social workers. Does the Minister agree that throughout the country it is not fully appreciated that social workers at the moment only receive one to two years' training and that it is the only profession in the country which only has one to two years' training? All other professions have three years. Does not the Minister agree that social workers have a heavy burden to bear in the work that they do?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I agree that they most certainly do have a very heavy burden in the work which they do. I observe that the panel of inquiry into the death of Jasmine Beckford chaired by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper recommended that nothing short of a period of three years was required for the professional training of social workers. That is one of the factors which the Government are taking into account.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept that I too was encouraged by his reponse. Is he aware that the proposal from the central council has had very widespread support from the organisations concerned? Does he accept that the training of qualified social workers and the training for the certificate in social service has simply not kept pace with the rapidly changing legislation and with the enormous pressures that are placed upon social workers, not just by particular inquiries such as the Blom-Cooper inquiry to which the Minister referred, but by the enormous number of cases with which they are now having to deal? Does the Minister accept the urgency of giving an affirmative answer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with those remarks. That is why the council published proposals for reforming social work training in its publication Care for Tomorrow. A decision is expected on that matter by the spring. However matters are even more urgent than that. Using a Government grant of £250,000 the council has launched an improvements package which includes work on the teaching and assessment of law.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who support very strongly the need for extending and improving the

989
training for social workers are nevertheless dismayed by the high cost and intellectual incoherence and triviality of the present proposals of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work? Will the Minister accept the desirability of a wide-ranging public debate on the functions and organisation of the council when the Government's review is completed in the spring?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a point on which I should not like to give an answer off-the-cuff. Of course we are well aware of the views of the trainers themselves both in universities and in polytechnics as well as in other places of training. All those matters would need to be taken into account before the Government publish their response.
Baroness David: My Lords, despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, is it not the case that the council's proposals, including the curriculum, had been agreed by the social work education committee of the joint universities council and by the standing conference of the heads of the certificate of qualification in social work course?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that may or may not be true but they have not yet been agreed by the Government who of course would have to pay for them.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the cost of these inquiries fully appreciated? I understand that the inquiry in Cleveland, which I know covers more than just the social workers, will cost about £1 million. If there had been fully trained social workers the other inquiries which have had to be undertaken need not really have taken place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that is a very dangerous supposition. There will always be in the best regulated of societies things that go wrong. Therefore inquiries will continue to be needed. Whether they would have needed to have been undertaken in such depth and with such severity as we have seen in those three cases I really cannot tell.

Cadaveric Organs: Donation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the donation of organs for medical purposes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government give strong encouragement to the donation of cadaveric organs for transplantation. Our policy is formulated within the framework of the Human Tissue Act 1961, which is based on the principle that organ donation is a voluntary act of generosity.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will answer two supplementary questions. Is it the case that at present fewer than half of the potential donors of organs have their organs removed when they are medically dead? Secondly, do the Government support the medical Royal Colleges' report opposing the American system of required request in which relatives have a veto over whether or not organs are removed? Under that system, hospitals must consult relatives before the removal of organs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as regards the first supplementary question, the suggestion is that fewer than half of such organs are removed when the individuals are not medically dead. I am afraid that I do not know the answer. However, the Government believe that the use of organs from living donors should be restricted and, where possible, gradually eliminated. In all cases there must be clear evidence that the consent of the donor has been freely given and is not motivated by financial considerations. In addition, relatives should approve of such a donation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of what are sometimes lethally long periods of waiting for an appropriate organ for transplant, will the Minister agree that the time has come for a new campaign to secure support for organ donation? Have the Government re-examined, or will they re-examine, the proposals for opting out rather than opting in in order to make organs that could save lives more readily available?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, a major campaign to promote the organ donor card was launched in 1984. National organisations have been persuaded to mount campaigns. The department is currently co-operating with British Telecom in a scheme to include organ donor cards with all telephone bills in the London area. In 1987, the department distributed about 5½ million donor cards.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, ever since donor cards came in, I have carried one. I have said that any organ of mine is available for anyone who can use it. I am now 80 years of age. My organs have had a roughish life. I have had 30 years of gout. I have a certain sneaking sympathy for anyone who has an organ to offer!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the fitness or otherwise of the organs of the noble Lord would depend on a clinical judgment made by the doctor concerned.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I believe that the Minister misunderstood my first supplementary question. I asked whether it is the case that fewer than half of the organs donated voluntarily, have been used. Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether he is now saying that the Government disapprove of the right of an individual to donate an organ irrespective of the wishes of surviving relatives.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord is exactly the same. Even if I misunderstood the question that was first asked, I still do not know the answer. As regards the second question, the Government believe that medical staff in the United Kingdom would in practice always wish to approach relatives before removing organs, even if the law did not require them to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the medical Royal Colleges' working party report (which I understood was accepted by the Government) opposes the method known as required request which is in use in the United States. Do the Government support that report and its opposition to that method, or do they repudiate the report of the working party?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Government have not commented on the report to which the noble Lord refers. We believe that it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. Evidence from the United States, which implemented such legislation in 1985, shows what I can only describe as mixed results. We are uncertain whether the American experience will be repeated if similar legislation is enacted in the United Kingdom.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend do everything in his power to persuade the noble Lord who has asked the Question to make an immediate donation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I encourage all Members of your Lordships' House to carry a donor card.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister mean that if I wish to leave my liver to the nation—it is an organ which has stood up to a considerable amount of abuse—my relations, on my death, may go contrary to my wishes? Surely that must be wrong.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I mean exactly that.

NHS Hospitals: Staff Costs
2.56 p.m.
Earl Atlee: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the percentage of the total annual expenditure on salaries and wages in National Health Service hospitals spent on medical staff, on administrative staff and on ancillary staff.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that the relevant figures for salaries and wages for hospitals are not collected centrally. However, the relevant figures in the United Kingdom hospital and community health services in 1986–87 were 14 per cent. for medical staff, 11 per cent. for administrative staff and 12 per cent. for ancillary staff.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of the number of beds being closed, will the Minister agree that it would be more sensible to cut down on the number of pen-pushers and paper-shufflers rather than cutting down on the number of nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: Indeed it would, my Lords. That is the reason why, in the past six years, there has been a reduction in, for example, the number of ancillary workers amounting to something over 120,000. That is the result of management action on manpower levels and the introduction of competitive tendering. The money saved in that way has gone directly into patient care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not clear from the experience in other countries that any sort of private insurance scheme is likely to be approximately twice as expensive in terms of administration as a tax-supported service such as the National Health Service? How does the Minister justify the low proportion of gross domestic product dedicated to the National Health Service in comparison with comparable countries which have a far higher level of payment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to the total amount of gross domestic product from both private and public sources, I do not believe that there is much difference between the countries in Europe. If the noble Lord is speaking only of the state provision, then I agree that there is sometimes a large difference. However, the objective is for the state to pay for the amount of medical care which it believes can be justified by the economy of the country concerned. I believe that that is what we have done over the past six years.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's helpful reply that he is accepting that private or insurance-financed health care is far more costly from an administrative point of view than a tax-paid national health service?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I did not say that. In terms of gross turnover, I confirm the figure which I have used before. Five per cent. is spent on administration and management. I am not able to confirm whether that figure would be higher or lower with a partially or totally private insurance-based medical service.
Lord Ennals: In that case, my Lords, what did his reply actually mean?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in a nutshell, my reply meant that it is extremely difficult to make the kind of comparisons which the noble Lord was asking me to make.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does that confirm my suspicion that the three percentage figures that the Minister gave in his original Answer do not add up to 100? If I am right, what sort of staff receives salaries and wages in the National Health Service that cannot

993
be described as either medical, administrative or ancillary?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, one enormous group would of course be the nurses. Another would be the professional and technical services, such as laboratory services.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been advised that there is no such thing as administrative staff in the National Health Service today? In my experience, under this Government everybody seems to be a manager or a deputy manager, with resultant chaos.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I find that very difficult to believe when 46 per cent. of all employees in the health service are nurses.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Motion for approval on the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) (Variation) Order 1988 will be taken.
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Government Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 28 [Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material]:
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Willis: I am sure—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I apologise to the noble Lord, but for the sake of those of us who had to leave the Chamber before the end of the proceedings yesterday, may we know whether any amendments were accepted other than the Government's amendments?
The Earl of Caithness: It may help the Committee if I confirm that only the two government amendments were accepted.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged. I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him.
Lord Willis: It is a pleasure.
I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to give an instant television rerun of the speech that I made yesterday nor of the arguments that I put forward then. I propose to be brief. This is an issue, however, on which I think that we must put down our markers; and I propose to do just that. Before doing so, I want to take issue with someone whom I never thought in my life to take issue with; that is, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I was astonished to hear his remarks yesterday toward the end of our discussions on this Bill when he said that the country, and particularly the young people of the country, would be laughing their heads off because of the elderly Peers who were discussing the subject of homosexuality.
With respect to my noble friend, I have to say that this Chamber has not only the right but the duty to discuss homosexuality, and not only that subject but also the Norfolk Broads, salmon fishing in Scotland, animal rights, the situation in Afghanistan, and anything that comes before it. A great many noble Lords happen to think that this is a very important clause which should receive the full attention of the Chamber. I should like to thank noble Lords who spoke on each side of the argument for the seriousness with which they approached the subject.
I have to tell my noble friend further that most of the people who wrote to me were young people. They are not out there laughing; they are weeping. Most of the people whom I have seen are not homosexuals and they are saddened by the way in which this Bill has been voted upon in this Chamber. That does not detract from my gratitude to all noble Lords for the seriousness with which they have approached this discussion.
There is just one main point that I should like to stress. I strongly object to the stigma given to homosexuals and homosexuality in this clause. I do not think that my objection can be better expressed than it was by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, when he said it was going to create an oppressed and distressed minority who may be forced into the kind of excesses that we all resent and do not want to see. To name homosexuals and only them in this clause is dangerous and misguided. As I said yesterday, I think that this is the first step on the road to an intolerant society.
I am rather proud of what this Chamber has done in the past 20 years to create a tolerant and understanding society. Yesterday I was saddened because I thought that a step backwards had been taken. Therefore, I intend to press this objection. As I say, I think that this is the moment to put down markers. If our view is defeated today, so far as I am concerned the fight will go on.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to speak briefly to this amendment because I did not have a chance to do so yesterday and I believe that this is the right move to make. In raising the subject in the way in which it has been raised in this clause of the Bill I feel that we have opened a Pandora's box of troubles, and revealed a great deal of explosive, emotional material which it would have been much better not to release. I should like briefly to say that I presume the objectives of the Government when introducing this clause were twofold: first, to restrain local authorities from the kind of indiscretions about which we have all read and which we have no doubt deplored; and, secondly, to protect schoolchildren from undesirable propaganda. However, those objectives must be achieved without inhibiting counselling in schools and any help or advice that may be necessary, without increasing fear and hysteria and without increasing the risk of censorship of any kind.
I do not believe that this clause achieves those objectives. As regards counselling in schools, perhaps I may read to the Committee the balanced words that appeared in the report of Her Majesty's Government's inspector entitled Health Education from 5 to 16, published in the series "Curriculum Matters" in 1986. The passage is not very long and I beg the Committee to listen to it attentively, as I am sure will be the case. This is what HMI had to say:
"Given the openness with which homosexuality is treated in society now it is almost bound to arise as an issue in one area or another of a school's curriculum. Information about and discussion of homosexuality, whether it involves a whole class or an individual, needs to acknowledge that experiencing strong feelings of attraction to members of the same sex is a phase passed through by many young people, but that for a significant number of people these feelings persist into adult life. Therefore it needs to be dealt with objectively and seriously, bearing in mind that, while there has been a marked shift away from the general condemnation of homosexuality, many individuals and groups within society hold sincerely to the view that it is morally objectionable. This is difficult territory for teachers to traverse and for some schools to accept that homosexuality may be a normal feature of relationships would be a breach of the religious faith upon which they are founded. Consequently, LEAs, voluntary bodies, governors, heads and senior staff in schools have important responsibilities in devising guidance and supporting teachers dealing with this sensitive issue".
That is what I wish to say in relation to counselling in schools.
With regard to fear and hysteria, we have to be very careful at this time because of the terrible threat of AIDS. The homosexual community is in danger of some very unpleasant scapegoating.
With regard to the censorship issue, a certain amount has been said about the threat to Shakespeare's sonnets and Plato's Symposium. This I believe is nonsense. I do not think that such works are likely to disappear from our library shelves. I can say the same of Virginia Woolf and Oscar Wilde—although I may say in passing that I remember a time as a boy when the name of Oscar Wilde could not be mentioned in the house.
The danger is that where a theatre in the provinces is financed by a local authority it might well withdraw its support for one or another of the plays that have been written, perhaps recently, on this subject for fear that it would expose itself to action from some
996
individual who considered that it was an infringement of the law. I am talking about such plays as "Breaking the Code" or "The Normal Heart". Why could not the whole issue have been handled with discretion as recommended in the HMI report that I have read out.
Powers are given to the Secretary of State in the Education Act 1944, where it states:
"If the Minister is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or voluntary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient".
In view of that, why is it necessary for us to make a new law which threatens to give rise to so many troubles?
A great many people in the country were looking to this Chamber yesterday, to this august assembly, to produce a decision which was wise, impartial and balanced, and I am afraid that we did not. In order to preserve the high reputation of this House, I beg the Government to think again. I support this Motion.
3.15 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: I listened to the whole of the debate yesterday and I felt at moments that it became very highly charged. I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, should have said that he detected a smell of fascism in the clause. I was amazed when the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that it was chilling, and the wind of intolerance. He said even today that there was a feeling of casting a stigma upon homosexuals. That is not the case with regard to this clause.
Normally our children develop into heterosexuals, ideally to become a father or mother of a family. The religions of our country—Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Mohammedan and Humanist, which perhaps is not a religion but a philosophy of life—underwrite this nuclear unit of mankind to reproduce our species of mother and father. The religions support that mother and father as being an ideal unit for man to go on breeding.
However, some local authorities have been promoting homosexuality by teaching it in state maintained schools. This is a gross abuse of their duties and a breach of trust to the parents whose children are put in their charge. A vast majority of parents, not only those who are happily married but also those left after marital breakdowns in charge of one-parent families, all hope that their children will grow up as heterosexual mothers or fathers. I believe that this is also true of parents who are homosexuals or lesbians. It would be trite to add that otherwise our human race would tend to become extinct.
Clause 28 does not seek in any way to censor or restrain the liberties granted to homosexuals and lesbians. It contains no such words. There is no attempt to persecute them or relegate them to second-class citizenship in any way. The clause does not

997
contain a word to curtail the publishing of books, plays, films or videos, which stand on their own artistic merit provided that they are not used as a cover plan to hide the primary aim of the sinister corruption of youth by promoting homosexuality. This is an excellent clause and although it is largely concerned with education I find nothing incorrect in its occurring as part of the Local Government Bill. It fits very neatly if one adds it to Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. I fully support that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If the noble Duke were to give a little further attention to this clause, he might have more doubt about it than he has given us to understand that he entertains at present. It is a clause which, as he says, on the face of it seems possibly of minor importance. But one should be warned immediately when one considers the rubric of the clause, which states:
"Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material".
"Publishing material" is the dangerous part of this Bill. One can conceive what is happening on the question of teaching. However, when we enter the area of publishing we are immediately in very deep water. We are beginning to enter the area of censorship. We threw out censorship 20 years ago when the Lord Chamberlain decided that the duties that he was carrying out were against the public interest; he made up his mind that the duties carried out during the previous 50 years were against the public interest. Now we have seen the wheel turn.
There was a joint parliamentary committee 20 years ago drawn from all sides of the House. It decided unanimously that we should no longer entertain censorship of drama. At 11 o'clock last night I moved an amendment to re-affirm what the Government have been saying all along: that this clause does not have the effect which all people in the arts fear that it has. I asked him to say that this clause re-affirms that, and to support it, but he would not. Therefore we had at that late hour to divide the Committee. Those of you who were present will know what happened. The Government had 33 votes; we, alas, could muster only 20 at that hour. We lost by 13 votes through lack of organisation. In reality I believe that this clause in its present form ought not to become part of the Bill. It is therefore my hope that my noble friend's Motion that the clause should not stand part will gain widespread support this afternoon. If we should be defeated again I should like to give a word of advice to those who have seen in the clause the dangers which have so far escaped the noble Duke. If he were to consult one or two of his friends on that side of the Committee who have more personal and close experience of the arts, for example the noble Lord, Lord St. John—no, it is not Stevas—
Noble Lords: Lord St. John of Fawsley!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I beg the noble Lord's pardon and I am sorry that he is not here to correct me himself. However, I am sure he would not mind me saying that he would and does find in the clause
998
objections which have escaped the noble Duke. I hope that we shall have a chat with each other to see whether there is not more danger in the clause than the noble Duke thinks.
It is a thoroughly bad clause. It is retrogressive in every way. It is a clause which should be thrown out. Some of my noble friends have said that it smells of fascism. Personally, I think that is pitching it a bit high. Nevertheless it is a thoroughly nasty attempt to reintroduce by the back door something which in this society we thought we had got rid of for ever. Now it is coming back. I do not like the way it is coming back and I am sure that on thinking about it Members of the Committee will decide that they do not like it either.
The Duke of Norfolk: Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that I have great experience of the arts. I was an actor when I was young. My daughter Marsha Ryecart is an actress now, married to Patrick Ryecart, an actor. Another daughter is married to a great broadcaster and I have no doubt that I know as much about the arts as does the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Let me briefly say that I accept the noble Duke's correction.
The Archbishop of York: I am sorry that I cannot draw on such a history, but I believe I owe it to the Committee to explain why I feel that I must vote against the clause. I must apologise that I have not hitherto been able to take part in any of the debates. I have other things to do, but I have read very carefully not only the Second Reading debate but also the whole of the debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in December 1986. I was fascinated when reading the debate to see that I was constantly being referred to in my absence as having written to the noble Earl to say that I disliked centralism and I therefore would not support his Bill. So I beg leave to explain my objections and my belief that this clause is the wrong way to deal with what I recognise is a very serious problem, but that legislation of this kind is far too blunt an instrument. In saying that I echo what the Minister said in winding up the debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
First, let me make it clear that before the whole debate started in 1986, I had already gone on public record as speaking out against the policies which were alleged to have been put into effect by certain local authorities. I have no wish at all to encourage what some people, some local authorities and some teachers have been doing which I regard as excessive and stupid. Of course like everybody else I want to protect children and young people, but what I object to in the Bill is the method proposed. I object to it because I believe it introduces a dangerous precedent in the control of ideas by central government. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has been saying, touches on the issue of censorship, but I believe it is broader than censorship.
If we establish the principle that central government can say what ideas may or may not be promoted, I believe that we have increased the

999
powers of central government to a dangerous extent. That is why I believe that the fundamental issue on the clause is that of civil liberty and the relationship between the individual and government.
It is easy to pass a clause which deals with a smallish, relatively weak and, for the most part, pretty unpopular group of people. They are a group of people who we all recognise can behave and have in the past behaved with quite extraordinary foolishness. I simply do not know why the homosexual lobbies go on putting out literature which is bound to inflame the kind of feelings that have been running through Parliament. But it is easy to be caught up in dislike of that and to fail to see the longer term implications of what we may be doing if we pass the clause.
It is easy to say of ourselves—and legislators and governments always do—that we should not dream of extending this principle to other people and to other circumstances. But once the principle is established that government can control the ideas which are taught and published, then we cannot tell how those who will follow us will use those powers which we shall have put on the statute book. But there is an obvious objection here. Do not central Government control some ideas already? What about religious education? The Government maintain the principle of religious education and agree that it is a vitally important area of life. However, it seems to me that in the current legislation they are falling over backwards not to dictate the content of it but to keep the content in the hands of those who are closest to the issues or who have some responsibility for them.
We have also very properly on the statute book legislation about racialism, sexual discrimination and such like. One may say that that again is an attempt to control ideas. Yes, of course, the Government have a stake in public attitudes. Bishops especially have a stake in public attitudes. But where we legislate about these matters we root the principles of our legislation very firmly in generally accepted principles and in this case in basic human rights. It seems to me that on that level it is right that the Government should excercise some control over ideas. But whatever Clause 28 is about, it is most certainly not about defending basic human rights.
I regard the clause as dangerous and unnecessary. The educational aspects of it can, as has frequently been said, be taken care of in the Education Reform Bill. If a small group of local authorities sometimes goes over the top in pressing the claims of minorities, it is in my view a far lesser evil than to introduce the principle of government interference. I am very surprised that the Government do not see this point.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise to give encouragement to Her Majesty's Government to enact Clause 28 as amended; that is to provide that local government shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or homosexual activities. The clause has overwhelming public support. Secondly, there are many thousands of worried
1000
families in Britain today who have been concerned about the publicity and the growth of homosexual practices. The recent Harris Poll has shown that 83 per cent. did not approve of schools teaching that homosexuality was on a par with heterosexuality, only 9 per cent. said that they did, and 43 per cent. disapproved of homosexual relationships between consenting adults. That is the concern at this stage. There is great national concern that homosexuality is being financially promoted to the detriment of normal family relationships. Part of our duty in this House is to ease those anxieties. The more it is publicised, as it is now, the greater the concern.
I do not doubt for one moment that those so-called looney-Left Labour councils, mainly in London, have been responsible for the parliamentary pressure to curb the promotion of homosexual activity. They abused their powers. They took no account of the views of the majority of ordinary people. They launched and financed programmes to aid and abet homosexuality, lesbianism and other minority causes until they became the laughing-stock of the nation and gave the Labour Party an image of weirdo protectionists to the detriment of its national appeal. I believe that someone had to restrain that growth before the promotion became widespread, encouraging every Labour council to do the same.
I say this with great respect to your Lordships' House, unaffected by the harsh wind of politics outside—and I came in from the cold only a few months ago. Under the reselection system of Labour councils those minorities apply pressure well beyond their electoral strength. Councillors will be bound to bend the knee. "Do as you are told, or else" is the theme that determines their reselection. So inevitably all the Labour groups and councils will gradually be pressurised into promoting homosexual activity. That is the danger and I believe that it is real. That is why I shall not be opposing the Government's efforts to curb the promotion of homosexuality.
There is no need for any witch-hunt and none is intended. Homosexuals will still be able to live their form of orthodox or normal life. There is no intention of banning or condemning their way of living. The clear intention is to stop the use of public money— ratepayers' money—in promoting and financing homosexual activity. One council —not one of the looney-Left in London—set up sub-committees for homosexuals and lesbians and then appointed what it called Sexual Orientation Training Officers. It spent thousands of pounds setting up gay centres. No doubt, due to the Government's cutback on local authority spending—
Lord Willis: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Mason of Barnsley: In a minute—those councils will be cutting back home helps for the disabled and the service for meals on wheels. I for one do not agree with that idea of priority, and neither should Labour councils. It is not my idea of socialism. Indeed, I am totally opposed to spending public money on promoting and encouraging homosexual and lesbian relationships, particularly as

1001
happy family units, thereby in the eyes of our young people making our proper established family institution look odd or queer. I shall now give way.
Lord Willis: The noble Lord mentioned a particular council. Will he name it? Will he then say how much it spent on promoting homosexuality, or how much of the total money was spent in counselling services for people with problems.?
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I know that my noble friend has some strength in his argument about counselling services. I listened to him yesterday when he mentioned two London boroughs. Between them they spent £260,000 on one year to promote homosexual activity.
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: The noble Lord read them out. It was for promoting homosexual activity. If they were doing that at a time of government cutbacks, what services were being lost to the ratepayers? Many thousands of ratepayers have been tolerant. I read the leading article in the Observer on Sunday. Of course it was against Clause 28. It wound up by stating:
"In the interests of justice, tolerance and above all common sense. Clause 28 must be dropped".
Many thousands of ratepayers have been tolerant. They have had no champion to fight their opposition to the financial promotion of homosexual activities. To them there is no justice in their money being spent in this way; to them it is simply common sense to allow homosexuals and lesbians to live in their own way and not be projected as something special. It is common sense to them that the money available—that is, ratepayers' money—could and should be better spent on improving the lot of the ordinary poor, homeless and unhappy people. The priority should be to give them an opportunity to enjoy a much happier life and not place homosexuals on a pedestal and as an example of or in pretended family relationships.
Since this clause was inserted in the Bill in another place there has been a considerable howl of protest by homosexual and lesbian groups to kill it. Also the arts circle, if I may describe it as such, wants to preserve its rights to promote homosexuality in writings, scripts and theatre. Many people believe that that permissiveness has also gone too far. A permissive society can enlarge only as fast as people are prepared to accept it. People are free to buy books or to go to the theatre where lesbianism or homosexuality might be portrayed. What about those who do not wish to be involved in any of these sexual activities? How helpless they feel when it is portrayed on a screen in their front-room. They feel concerned that the permissive society is expanding and they have no means to stop it.
Also these homosexual protesters—many have been egged on by the artists and no one can deny that—were answered by Robert Kilroy Silk in his
1002
column in The Times last week. He was against Clause 28, but towards the end of his article he stated:
"it … has to be said that many homosexuals bear a heavy responsibility for the current nasty atmosphere and for the future threat. It is they who have deliberately and provocatively adopted a militantly high public profile, who have flaunted their sexuality, who have aggressively paraded their lifestyle and who seem to enjoy the resultant shock and relish the public distaste.
They are entitled to do this. There is no doubt about that. But when they do it they should not expect to be liked, loved, or even respected as a result".
Many commentators have been drawing our attention to the concern about the high profile of the raucous minority of homosexuals. In the Yorkshire Post Bernard Dineen said:
"Amend Clause 28 by all means to make sure it cannot be used for persecuting homosexuals. But the fear is phoney. The real danger is of the public being persecuted by noisy groups which represent nobody but themselves.
And once again the main sufferers will be those homosexuals who get on with their lives quietly and are embarrassed by the shrill exhibitionists who profess to speak for them".
There is a lot of truth in what they say. We do not want Clause 28 to become a bigot's charter, but there is no doubt that the bigots and militants of the homosexual groups have assisted this backlash against themselves. Therefore the raucous minority of homosexuals must learn to live with this clause and the Act.
The majority of homosexuals will not be affected. They will go on quietly and unashamedly living in their own way, adopting the view of the mass of the British people as this furore settles down; that is to live, just as it should be.
Lord Grimond: The most reverend Primate made some very important points in his speech, principally on the extreme delicacy and complications of the matter on which the Committee is proposing to legislate; and, secondly, on the danger of setting precedents. He dealt very candidly with the position of Christianity, which has a special position in this country and which might be held to be a doctrine imposed on the country by the Government. There are many atheists who might object to the privileged position of Christianity.
I am not sure that I follow the most reverend Primate's point about human rights, because it could be argued that children and parents have a human right to attend schools at which homosexuality is not promoted.
Leaving aside those matters, which we could debate for a long time, there is a real danger of establishing precedents in this matter which could be quoted in quite different contexts. I have no doubt that there has been abuse by certain education authorities. I have no doubt that the Government's motives are entirely pure, and that if these amendments were left in their hands little damage would be done, but it is time that some protest was made against the growing habit of legislating whenever something is raised in the press. However local, however trivial, if there is enough publicity the cry goes out, "The Government must legislate". I doubt whether legislation is the solution to many of these ills. There is insufficient evidence as to how widespread the trouble is. It is not known how many

1003
local authorities are involved, or what effect any abuse of this matter has had in education so far.
Further, there will be great difficulties about the word "promote", whatever the Government may say. When this is quoted in different contexts it is going to be difficult to say what is the promotion of homosexuality and what is their explanation of what it means. Does the teaching of In Memoriam promote the idea that homosexuality may be a good thing?
I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that homosexuality in education is a matter of considerable difficulty and delicacy, as the most reverend Primate said. Many of the best teachers in schools and universities have been homosexual to some extent and in some ways. I do not mean by that that they practised homosexual acts. Many noble Lords may have been at schools and universities where the teachers were there partly because they had a particular interest in boys if they were men, or girls if they were women. I do not think I am saying anything that is not widely accepted.
Doubts have been expressed before now as to whether single-sex schools are the ideal medium in which to bring up children. I do not imply that the Government intend to raise such matters in the Bill. Of course they do not. There is some doubt as to whether these matters are suitable for a local authority Bill at all. All I say is that once this path is opened up people cannot be prevented from going down it. They will say, "In the Local Government Bill it is made illegal to promote homosexuality. It must be illegal in other contexts too". That will be quoted in all sorts of contexts and throughout education. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that this is the right way to tackle the abuses which we may all agree exist. Nor do I think there has been sufficient evidence about the degree of abuse or the numbers involved.
Therefore, I ask the Government to take this matter away and reconsider it. Although the Government maintain that they have not changed their attitude, it is fairly clear that they have. At one time this was not the method favoured for dealing with such matters. No harm would be done to the reputation of this Chamber, to education in this country or to local authorities if this clause were withdrawn and the matter were reconsidered.. Possibly if the necessary safeguards were to be introduced they should be introduced in another way.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, both suggested that this clause was the wrong method for dealing with what I think both of them conceded to be a real problem. The Committee will have noted that both the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, did not advocate any alternative method of dealing with the situation. In a limited but important number of boroughs a situation exists where the local authority is seeking to promote homosexual ideas in schools—indeed, involving some persecution of
1004
heterosexual orientated teachers—and also by activities in support of homosexual organisations elsewhere.
Most people in this country, in this Chamber and outside, regard that as a very serious matter. After all, it is a fact that young males at a certain stage of life—that is, soon after puberty—in many cases have a homosexual element or tendency in them which the vast majority of them succeed in restraining, to their credit. But if attempts are made deliberately to emphasise that side of their nature and to suggest that the homosexual way of life is just as good as ordinary married life—indeed, perhaps better, as my noble friend says—it is fairly certain that some of those young people will be led to adopt a homosexual orientation which they would not otherwise have adopted. That is the basic problem.
With very great respect both to the most reverend Primate and to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I ask whether they are suggesting that the government of the day have no responsibility, and that they should simply leave so-minded authorities to indulge in what most people regard as very damaging work on young people in particular. Are they suggesting nothing should be done about that?
Lord Grimond: I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord has said. I fully agree that his arguments have force, but I should like to point out that there are many other things which ought not to be taught in schools. It is doubtful whether we are going to legislate against any teaching running through all the Ten Commandments and much more. Further, I also draw attention to the speech of my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee, who pointed out that the Secretary of State apparently already has powers to deal with these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord's argument seems to be the odd one that because there are other evils, as of course there are, this one should not be dealt with, when it can be dealt with by the proposals which the Government are adopting. That is a very defeatist line for the noble Lord to take—a defeatist line even for a distinguished leader of the Liberal Party.
The Archbishop of York: Perhaps I may take up the point about teaching in schools and quote from the statement of the Minister during the debate on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, 18 months ago. He asked why there should be a Bill of this kind in schools, and he added:
"at the very time that those same authorities are about to cease to have a direct role in determining the kind of sex education to be offered in schools".
My point is that because the whole educational scene is changing in relation to schools, this particular clause is unnecessary. In relation to other young people who one hopes are of an age to be more resistant to propaganda—some of them incidentally being ratepayers—it seems to me proper that there should be opportunities for them to learn about their condition through information which local authorities have the right to supply.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for that intervention. I think there are two answers to it. On the second point about the supply of information, I read nothing into this clause that would prevent the supply of relevant, balanced information if somebody asked for it. As regards the new relationships in schools, I do not follow him. As I understand it, there is nothing in the Education Bill—now at present passing its peaceful way through another place—to deal with this particular point. Therefore, we come back to the fact that those who would take this clause out of the Bill without offering an alternative are saying to our fellow countrymen, "Yes, we know there is an evil here which may do harm to the lives of quite a number of young people".
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord said that no alternative has been offered. The noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Ritchie, said that the powers to deal with this matter already exist in the Education Act 1944. Will the noble Lord please answer that?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is grateful to the noble Baroness for intervening on his behalf and giving the answer which he conspicuously failed to give to me. However, it is surely obvious and obvious to the noble Baroness that if there is power in the 1944 Act, no Government having that power would put itself to the trouble and difficulty of introducing further and new legislation. That would be nonsense.
If the noble Baroness having intervened would be good enough to listen, she will appreciate that nothing in the Education Act 1944 can possibly deal with the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities other than in schools such as they are doing and such as this Bill deals with. Therefore, we still come back, despite the gallant effort of the noble Baroness, to the fact that the issue on which the Committee will have to vote in due course is whether we are prepared to leave what is happening in a certain number—and I do not want to exaggerate—of boroughs, schools and outside schools. For example, Camden has just advertised four £15,000 a year jobs for its lesbian organisation. Are we prepared just to leave that? It is no good the noble Baroness trying to pretend that powers exist. It is obvious commonsense that no Government which had powers would take the trouble to legislate to acquire them. It is not an argument that needs to be treated very seriously.
That is the issue for the Committee. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that this is a very important clause. However, I respectfully disagree with him when he said that its effect is to impose a stigma on homosexuals generally. There is nothing in the Bill which inflicts a stigma on anybody. It may well be that the agitation, the very considerable exercise of public comment and representations, and the stirring up of interest in this subject which agitation against this clause has brought about, could be creating something of a stigma; but it is not created by the clause. One should confine oneself to the simple issue of whether or not we are prepared to allow ratepayers' money to be used to promote homosexuality.
1006
There is only one other point. Several Members of the Committee have referred to the dangers of censorship, and I share their antipathy to that in general. This is not censorship in an extreme sense. It does not inhibit any expression of opinion except at the expense of ratepayers. Any other person is entitled, so far as this Bill stands, to advocate homosexuality if they want to do so. This is simply confined to preventing public money—money of local authorities and ratepayers—being used for this purpose.
On the broader issue, we of course have other forms of censorship. One Member of the Committee referred to the Race Relations Act. There are certain matters calculated to stir up racial feeling which it is a criminal offence for anybody to utter. I believe that most Members of the Committee feel that this is a proper provision. However, it is censorship. There is no getting away from the fact that it is censorship. If Members of the Committee accept that the evils of stirring up racial troubles are properly censored and censored in the true sense of the word, then many Members of the Committee may feel that the more modest refusal to allow young people to be corrupted on behalf of the ratepayers is a very sensible provision, and I hope the clause will stay in the Bill.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As one who was deeply involved in the birth of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Halsbury (now enshrined in Clause 28 which we are debating), I should like to make three or four points. The fears that have been expressed so vociferously in the press and in this Committee regarding the availability of such books as the works of E. M. Forster, Colette, Marcel Proust, and so on, in public and school libraries; the plays of Oscar Wilde at the theatre; films like "Death in Venice" in the cinema and "Billy Budd" and suchlike in the opera repertoire are totally without foundation. These fears have, I believe, been sown and industriously nurtured in the minds of many people who are deeply concerned with the arts by a very small but vociferous minority who wish that the abuses that this clause is designed to put a stop to should continue. However, I am persuaded that such fears are totally unfounded.
For example, if a public library were to stock books about homosexuality or written by homosexuals among a wide variety of other works and lend them to those who inquire for them, it could not possibly fall foul of this clause. However, if the librarian in that library were asked by a 12 to 15 year-old, for example, to recommend some suitable reading, and were to guide that child to books portraying homosexual relationships as being preferable to heterosexual ones, then I believe he would fall foul of this clause. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady White, who was very concerned with this matter yesterday evening, is not in her place; but I hope that if she reads what I have said, that will be of some comfort to her.
Again if a maintained school were to put on a production of "The Importance of Being Earnest" it could not possibly fall foul of this clause, but if that were done as part of an effort to glorify

1007
homosexuality as practised by Oscar Wilde it would be in trouble. If a local authority were to commission a playwright of acknowledged merit to write a play the clear purpose of which was to encourage homosexual practices, that authority would be in trouble. However, if in the course of teaching Greek literature a teacher introduced her pupils to the beauties of Sappho's poetry that would not be affected; but if in the course of sex education the poems of Sappho were to be used to glorify lesbianism that would not do. It is like that.
Secondly, and this follows, counselling will not be affected. Responsible counselling cannot be affected because objective discussion is not promotion. Unbiased counselling is not promotion. Provision of unbiased reading matter is not promotion.
My third point is that opponents of this clause say that it is unnecessary—or some of them do—because the local authorities engaged in perpetrating the abuses that this clause seeks to clobber have realised the errors of their ways and are no longer doing so, so I have heard. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just given us an example which shows that that is not true. We are told that those authorities have bowed to the wishes of the majority of parents. I am sorry, but I believe that that is absolute rubbish. They have only mended their ways, where they have done so, in rather a hurry since the Bill of my noble friend Lord Halsbury passed through this House, unopposed, last year. If we do not enact this clause there is nothing whatever to stop those authorities going back to their bad old ways. If they have genuinely mended their ways, I do not know why they should object to this clause.
My fourth point is that we have been told by many Members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Soper, Lord Willis, and others—that this is the beginning of a pogrom against homosexuals. Nobody wants to start a witch-hunt against homosexuals in this country, with the exception of course of a few maniacs; but there are always maniacs who will start a witch-hunt against almost anything. This is not the first step along the road to concentration camps and the gas chambers.
Indeed, I suggest that the support for the safeguarding of children which is enshrined in Clause 28 and annoyance at the excesses of some members of the homosexual fraternity, with the spending of ratepayers' money on them, are so strong throughout the country—85 per cent.—that if this clause is not passed an anti-homosexual backlash is not only possible but quite probable. I believe that the clause will actually prove to be a safeguard.
As we have heard, a MORI poll shows that 85 per cent. of the people of this country are looking to us in this Committee today to pass this clause. Do not let us disappoint them.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: A great deal has been said about the arts with which I largely concur. I simply want to touch briefly on one point which has been raised only in passing by my noble friend Lord Ritchie of
1008
Dundee. I refer to the public health aspect of the clause.
I read what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said last night, reported in Hansard, col. 893:
"We believe that care, counselling and health education in relation to AIDS or other diseases are fully covered by the present formulation in subsection (2)".
However, he prefaced that remark with his own personal opinion—"We believe". I want to test him on a particular case, if I may. I have here a letter from Dr. Farthing, one of the doctors at the forefront of the AIDS campaign at St. Stephen's Hospital in Fulham. He wrote to me as follows:
"Many of my patients have expressed concern that this could be interpreted by local governments to mean that it would be illegal to give grants to such establishments as the Lesbian and Gay Centre…and possibly also be illegal to grant licences for public houses that are frequented by gay men or that specifically cater for gay men. From my point of view as a doctor caring for patients with AIDS, I feel it would be a very unfortunate thing if the Bill was to be interpreted this way and such establishments were closed. It seems to me that it is largely because there are such social centres for gay people that we have been able so successfully to promote 'safe sex" in this risk group. It is now well documented that safe sex practices have been widely adopted by the homosexual community, but unfortunately the same has not been achieved for IV drug abusers where such communal centres are not possible. Organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust have a travelling safe sex road show that goes from one gay club to the next".
In fact to a certain extent the Government fund the Terrence Higgins Trust. I do not remember the exact amount of the grant for this year, but surely it would be absurd if that activity by a homosexual agency which has played a great part in combating AIDS were to be interfered with by the measures contained in this Bill.
Therefore, I ask the noble Earl whether he will perhaps firm up the remarks that he made last night, slightly strengthen his phraseology of "We believe" and state categorically that it is the Government's intention that activities of that sort, which are a legitimate part of the crusade against AIDS (if I may call it that), will not be interfered with by anything contained in this Bill. Unless he is able to give me that assurance I shall have to think very seriously about tabling an amendment on Report.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say how fascinating it is to notice that of all Members of the Committee who spoke yesterday, and indeed today, whichever point of view they may have taken, not one has yet said other than that he wishes to see tolerance of homosexuality continuing. That is very much my view. If that is what society decides it wants, then I support that and I am content to go along with it.
I very much admired the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made yesterday. I disagreed with much of it but no one can doubt his sincerity or that of all Members of the Committee who have spoken on the subject. However, I want to join hands with my fellow Yorkshire compatriot, the noble Lord, Lord Mason. It may be strange to do that from the opposite side of the Committee but his was a theme which to me is very important and one that so far has not been sufficiently clarified in the debate.
We have heard one side of the story and we are all sympathetic to it: namely, that people who believe in

1009
following the homosexual way of life should be permitted to do so without let or hindrance, and no one objects whatever to that. However, they do not leave it at that. They take it much further. Indeed, the extent to which they denigrate heterosexuality is a matter for real concern.
I give only two quotations because I am aware that time is moving on and others wish to speak. I quote from an item in the Daily Telegraph, It appeared a few months ago and I have a copy if anyone wishes to read it:
"Homosexual council staff in the London Borough of Camden may soon be going away for a weekend at the ratepayers' expense to discuss the evils of heterosexism in the workplace. Plans have been drawn up by the council's homosexual unit which says in a report 'The contents of the weekend would be around internalised oppression and how to cope with heterosexism at work'".
It goes on to say:
"According to the unit which has been given a budget of £124,000".
We are told that that is not much money in relation to the totality spent by the council. Well I am one of those old fashioned fellows to whom £124,000 is still £124,000. I can think of a good deal that I could do with £124,000 in providing services for people.
Lord Willis: Will the noble Lord give way? Is he aware that the story he has just mentioned about Camden was denied by Camden council? It wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph denying it, and the letter was not published.
Lord Bellwin: I hear what the noble Lord says, and he may well have a point. It is a point which he wishes to push and he may well be right; but I am not satisfied. I would need confirmation at first hand.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bellwin: It is not that I doubt the noble Lord, and he knows that. I could stand here and take a whole half-hour giving quotations and examples, but that is not what the Committee wants and, for that matter, it is not what I want.
I can give many more examples; in fact, I will depart from that quotation and give some others. My next quotation is in written form from Haringey council, which put out the following resolution:
"We will oppose heterosexism in all its forms. Local councils need to take a public stand of opposition to heterosexism as promoting one sexuality as a superior one.".
This is the only other quotation I shall give. It is from the Gay Liberation Front manifesto. It states:
"We, along with the women's movements, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family. The end of the family will benefit all women and gay people".
Have we gone mad altogether? I feel very much that this is the kernel of the whole argument. It is naive in the extreme to suppose that the homosexual community wants only to be allowed to go its way. If that were so, there would be no need for Clause 28 and we would not have it. The fact is that the issue of teaching and promoting such behaviour as a way of life in schools is something that is anathema to many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, was right when he said that hundreds and thousands of people and
1010
parents all over the country are worried very much that the teaching of such matters will affect their children. Those who listened to the debate on the Bill put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, could not have failed to be impressed—I believe this feeling was right across the Chamber—by some of the emotive speeches made to express the concern of parents. We are told by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that this is not a subject about which we should legislate. If we do not legislate to protect the parents of children who go to schools where this kind of behaviour is being promoted, if Parliament does not legislate, who will?
I pleaded that the local authority association should be the organisation to take up this issue for the protection of its own reputation. I suggested that it should speak out and say something, but not a word have I heard other than some private objections. When I speak to my erstwhile colleagues in local government about this matter they tell me how much they deplore what is done in this way, but they do not actually do anything about it. They pass no resolutions; they publicly make no comment in any official way. Therefore it comes back (as it always does) to government, and local government is clobbered because somebody has to try to remedy the situation, which it should have done and has not done.
That is really what this matter is about. Clause 28 has nothing to do with tolerance of homosexuality; it has nothing to do with freedom to publish instructive pamphlets; it has nothing to do with loving relationships and it has even less to do with literature which portrays sexual deviation. It has solely to do with teaching and preaching by local authorities in schools and elsewhere within their purview. I believe they have no right to use public funds to promote controversial doctrines which are offensive to the majority of people.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bellwin: The amendments yesterday were about watering down this clause, and today we are deciding if there is a need for it at all. So far as I am concerned there is a very great need for it and I hope the Committee will support it and not the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: This has been a very long debate. I sat through the whole of the debate yesterday, as did the Minister, who is also sitting through all of the present debate. It seems to me that the debate has been excellent in the sense that it has simply demonstrated how unsatisfactory is this clause. It has simply not been thought through.
If the Committee likes to remind itself, yesterday we really had two debates. There was the debate which attracted 270 Members of the Committee, and that debate lasted until dinner time. After dinner there were some 50 or 60 noble Lords who slogged it out on the detail of the amendments. Regretfully, because the printed record of the latter is not yet available, many Members of the Committee will not be aware of what then happened.

1011
One certainly tried to amend the Bill and to make sense of it; one tried valiantly. Nonetheless, it became apparent that the clause is nonsensical. I sat here yesterday looking at the faces of the Members of the Committee opposite. One only had to look at the protagonists of this clause to appreciate that they fully realised how unsatisfactory it is. In any other Bill a clause as defective as this would have been taken away, but the protagonists of this clause persist no matter what.
Why do they persist? The answer has to be the concern with homosexuals, because that is really what this issue is about and nothing else. Any clause, no matter how imperfect, no matter if it is almost uninterpretable or dangerous, is better than none. It also emerged yesterday without any doubt, and as a result of interventions on the other side, that there really is a new censorship in the offing and a genuine threat to the arts.
I for one very much wanted to be convinced by the Minister. I sat here listening and hoping that he would convince me. He tried several times to reassure me and others that there was nothing to worry about. Each time the Minister tried to do that, one or other of his colleagues spoke and then the Minister responded to save the situation. In the end there could be no doubt at all that the position is precisely as I have described it. There can be no doubt that here there is a genuine problem of censorship and restraint. That is the issue that cannot be avoided.
In connection with that point, I heard yesterday from at least one noble Lord, and indeed also today, what to me at least is an extraordinary and a rather shocking statement. That is that homosexuals flaunt their homosexuality; they are uppish and they are pushy; they have brought this situation upon themselves. I heard that yesterday and today. I hope Members of the Committee will remember the context in which that kind of remark used to be made and the kind of persecution that followed from it. There is no avoiding that conclusion despite the way in which some noble Lords yesterday objected to being accused of association with elements with which, on reflection, they would not wish to be associated.
I should also like to say to the Minister, having today heard one or two Members of the Committee who support him, that with that kind of support I do not believe he needs any enemies.
In particular, the logic of the problem concerns me a great deal. The view on the intentions of the local authority, according to the Minister, would then enable inferences to be drawn about, for example, its library purchase policy or its support for the theatre. The Committee can proceed from its view of its intentions to its view of what the local authority does in those areas. Yesterday the Minister seemed to be quite clear about that. It also seemed to be the case—it certainly was not shown not to be the case—that the policies of the local authority in respect of its library purchases and support for the theatre might be regarded as evidence of its intentions. Indeed, I do not quite see where else one can get evidence of its intentions.
1012
What lies behind this debate, bearing in mind the point 1 made at Second Reading and which has been made today; namely, that so many of the examples put forward turn out not to be the case? Far too many of them are untrue for anybody to be at all satisfied with what is being argued. This is simply reflecting the worst elements of the media. I for one cannot see at all why a government with such a large majority in the other House should give in to such a lowering of civilised standards. I find it inconceivable that so many noble Lords voted yesterday to countenance the vulgarity and barbarity of this clause.
There are some questions which I should like to raise. The first goes to the nub of the philosophy that lies behind the clause, and it concerns the nature of homosexual relationships. As I understand it, the purpose of the clause is to make it illegal to promote a homosexual relationship as if it were a family relationship. Certainly several noble Lords have argued that that is how they visualise it. The question I have to ask myself—and I have all along—is this: what is the relevant argument here? Is it scientific, is it logical, or is it ethical?
Is it being said that the proposition that a homosexual relationship is a family one is scientifically incorrect? Is that what is being said? Therefore, are we being asked to legislate to prevent local authorities from falling into scientific error? Or is it being said that the proposition is illogical in the sense of being self-contradictory; and then we are being asked to legislate to preserve analytical purity at the local level? Or is it being said that the proposition is unethical, and therefore the purpose of the law in this case is to raise the moral standards of local authorities? It is my view that simply to consider these questions is to show total lack of intellectual underpinning for what the Government are about here.
Yesterday I asked the Minister two questions and I must say that I was really rather shocked by the answers he gave. I shall ask them again, especially as he has written to me since yesterday to clarify what he said. He may wish to take the opportunity when he comes to reply to say again what his view now is in regard to my questions. I shall repeat my questions and also say why I ask them. I asked him for an assurance that if the clause were passed into law no books would have to be withdrawn from libraries as a consequence. Secondly, I asked him whether we could be assured that no teacher, librarian or other local authority employee who is explicitly homosexual—who says, "I am a homosexual, no more no less"—would be in danger of being fired.
My view was that if the noble Earl could have answered "yes" to those questions and could have said that neither of those dangers existed, which indeed I expected him to say, there was no worry. But he did not say that. If he is unable to answer and to say that no books will be forcibly withdrawn as a result of the clause and that no one is in danger of losing his job because he is a homosexual, I have to say that this clause will be a book banner's, if not a book burner's clause, and more important it will become a blackmailer's charter.
Lord Beloff: I was hoping not to have to intervene again; but after the speech we have just listened to, with its farrago of insinuations which repeat some that were made by the noble Lord and his colleagues yesterday, I feel that I must come back to express the genuine anxieties on this side of the Committee about the campaign that is being waged against this clause.
The noble Lord was honest enough to tell us yesterday that he was opposed to the clause standing part of the Bill, so it is not altogether surprising that his efforts to amend a clause which he was anyhow going to oppose did not find great favour with the Committee. But what I object to is the misuse, to begin with, of history. We have heard a good deal about the road to fascism. This is, as noble Lords will be aware, totally remote from what is in the intention or the language of the clause. If one wished to pursue these matters in relation to homosexuality, it would be possible, as a professional historian, to point out the very important role of homosexuality in the origins and conduct of the Nazi movement. We do not do so because we are not here to attack homosexuality, and we expect the same honesty from our opponents.
Some noble Lords on the Benches to the left of the Woolsack were stern, particularly yesterday, on the matter of censorship. I can understand that people who have just entered into a pretended family relationship—I mean of course in the political sense—find it difficult to avoid attacking the use of a phrase like that in legislation. But again there is no evidence that anything in this Bill can or would involve censorship in any respect in which censorship does not already exist through laws, as has been pointed out, against racial abuse, obscenity and so forth. It is this constant raising of prejudice that has worried more than anything else those on this side of the Committee.
There is another point which puzzles me even more. I refer to the extraordinary indifference which some noble Lords appear to have about the interests of children. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told us last night—many noble Lords were no longer present—about a lesbian couple who lived with a five-year-old child of one of them. The noble Lord was worried that if the clause were passed it would effect their sensibilities and through that the future of the child.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. At no stage did I say that I was worried that it would affect their sensibilities. What I was worried about was the child. Noble Lords may have their own view about the propriety of a homosexual couple living together and about the propriety of a homosexual couple having a child. What there can be no doubt about is that the interests of the child must be paramount. This clause makes it impossible for teachers to tell the truth to a child about the acceptability of its own family.
Lord Beloff: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord. I would hate do that. I am delighted to know that the interests of the child are paramount. My view is that to make it possible for homosexual couples without any form of conscience to inflict an
1014
example of this kind upon a growing child is cruelty to the child. That I think is what worries the rank and file of parents throughout the country.
People talk about London as though this only happens in London. That is not true. I had a telephone call from a man in Leicester who was unknown to me. He said, "I am a believing Christian. I am ringing you up in order to ask you to make sure that this clause is passed. I have young children and I am frightened about what may happen to them if this propagation of homosexuality is not halted". We on this side of the Committee care first and foremost about children. We care about the perpetuation of the heterosexual normal family as the basis of civilised society here and in other countries. We are not going to be intimidated by a lot of chatter about alleged dangers to culture or the theatre, all of which are untrue and even if they were true would be of second-rate importance beside the maintenance of the moral basis of our society.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not follow the argument of the noble Lord. I trust that the Committee will not wish me to follow the tone in which the argument was put.
I believe that those of us who sat through nearly eight hours of debate yesterday and one and a half hours of debate today will have drawn three conclusions. The first concerns the sincerity of the passion felt on both sides of the argument and the strength of the passion felt on both sides of the argument. My noble friend Lord Mason will not expect me to agree with what he said this afternoon, but I recognise the sincerity of what he said and the passion with which he said it. I hope that he will recognise the sincerity of the views that I am putting forward. However. I must say that I speak on this matter purely in a personal capacity.
The second matter that is conspicuous is that 95 per cent. of the passion in support of the clause and against the amendments put forward yesterday was a passionate concern for the rights and interests of children and young people. That in particular must be recognised for its sincerity. That leads me to the first conclusion: when one looks at the clause it is clear that, if we are to respect fully the feelings of noble Lords—and I believe that these feelings come from all sides of the Chamber—some way must be found of protecting the interests of young children without the disadvantages in the clause that have been pointed out. I understand that my noble friend Lord Longford at a later stage proposes to move an amendment to do precisely that—to confine the matter of the clause to children and young people. I think that we ought to consider seriously such an amendment. It may well be possible to find a form of words that will be effective, that will provide a valid defence and that will be worthy of the Committee's support.
The third conclusion that must follow for anyone who has attended the whole of the debate concerns the total failure of the proponents of the clause and of the Government to put forward any sort of workable amendment in relation to adults. At every

1015
stage when we have looked at the attempts of the clause to deal with the promotion of homosexuality to and by adults and at publishing material about homosexuality or purporting to homosexuality, the arguments put forward by the proponents of the clause have fallen on the merits of the case. As we approached midnight last night it became almost embarrassing how, on every occasion that we sought to query the effectiveness or the intention of the clause in relation to adults, the argument collapsed.
Let us take the argument on censorship. Both the Minister and many noble Lords have said that there is no question here of censorship. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, without any contradiction said that artistic merit was not to be a valid defence of any publication against a charge that it was promoting homosexuality. Many artistic works of all kinds throughout the ages certainly have promoted homosexuality as an acceptable sexual relationship and, indeed, as an acceptable "pretend"—whatever that means—family relationship. On the arguments of the noble Lord, those would be subject to censorship and the local authorities that published them would, on the basis of the clause, be liable to attack if they did so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord wishes to quote me, perhaps he will be good enough to do it accurately. I said that, where a publication was intended to promote homosexuality, the fact that it was expressed in fine literary language was not a defence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that that was what I said the noble Lord said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The danger will be apparent to the Committee.
As to the remedies to be sought against local authorities, the Government were unclear whether a judicial review was an appropriate procedure. The Minister said that the remedy appeared to be civil rather than criminal. He therefore left open to any well intentioned or ill intentioned individual or group of individuals the possibility to take action against the local authority in the light of the clause. That may or may not be the right thing to do. When individuals or groups of individuals seek to take action against a local authority, however misconceived in law that action may be, the first reaction of the local authority—and particularly of councillors who are afraid of surcharge—is to seek to back down and find means by which to change their ways in the face of a threat of action that may not be justified. Therefore, a serious effect of the clause may be self-imposed censorship.
Whenever we question the implications of the clause for libraries, theatres and films, as my noble friend Lord Peston has said very effectively, there are no clear answers as to what are the statutory responsibilities of local authorities. There are therefore no clear answers to the question of how
1016
those statutory responsibilities can be reconciled with the need to include the representation of homosexuality in its right place in our literature or arts and the threat of being accused of promoting homosexuality.
Much more important, on the issue of civil rights the Government were unable to give any clear answers to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Gifford—questions that have now been raised in an effective and moderate speech by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. If the Government fail to reply to the points of the most reverend Primate they will have forfeited what remains of the respect due to the attitude that they are putting forward. When it comes to relating the clause to adults none of the problems raised from all sides of the Committee about the wording and intent of the clause has been overcome by the arguments. No adequate response has been given to them.
I have already conceded that the case is different when it comes to the law in regard to children. I respectfully suggest that some way must be established to withdraw that part of the clause relating to adults and to find an appropriate way of dealing with the problems relating to children. If it is the Government's view that it is proper for a clause about the promotion of homosexuality to children to be included in the Bill—and I find it difficult to see how that can be, first, because it is not in the Long Title and, secondly, because it relates to children, not to local government, and it would go more appropriately in an education Bill—then I respectfully suggest this. They should accept that the clause should not stand part but with an undertaking to come back at the next stage with a clause that can be justified, made workable and which relates to children. If that is not the case, it is my personal view that the clause has so many dangers, inconsistencies and unwanted extensions to its application that it is not deserving of the Committee's support.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps it might be right that I should follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Our debates yesterday showed how much we differ in our views on this clause. We now have the chance to stand back from the detail of the amendments and view the clause as a whole. As we do so. I think it is right to remind the Committee what we think this clause is about, why we support it and why we do not think it causes problems.
We start from the position that Parliament has entrusted local authorities with many specific powers and some very general powers. These powers, particularly the general powers, can be used for a wide variety of purposes. The local authority has a wide discretion in what use it makes of the powers. We do not therefore want to trammel those discretionary powers of local authorities, but there can come a time when the use made of them is inappropriate. Parliament then has the right, and I believe the duty, to tell local authorities that they are making such an inappropriate use of their powers that they should stop doing so.
We have such an occasion here today. A few local authorities have decided that they have a role in

1017
promoting homosexuality. They consider, in other words, that they ought to indulge in some social engineering in order to produce a structure of society more in tune with the beliefs of the controlling groups of those councils. I think that the British public does not consider that it is the province of local authorities to indulge in this form of social engineering. The Government agree with this view and that is what the clause declares.
We have been treated to so many claims about the damage which this clause could do that I think it might help the Committee if I attempt to say what I think this clause and this debate are not about. As the Committee would expect, these views reflect the Government's considered legal advice. The clause is not about stopping local authorities providing services to homosexuals. Some local authorities have tried to ensure that the services provided by the councils serve the needs of homosexuals as much as the needs of the community. There can be no objection to such an aim. As I said yesterday, this Government are opposed to discrimination.
This clause is not about making local authorities into petty censors of the arts. As we have repeatedly said, no local authority will be affected by the clause in its support for the arts, if its aim is simply to provide the inhabitants of its area with access to a full range of literary and artistic work.
I have to say to the most reverend Primate that this clause is not an attack on human rights. It says nothing at all about what any individual may or may not do. It is not about creating a stigma, which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was concerned about. It is solely concerned with saying that certain public bodies may not use their discretionary powers for certain purposes. I tried to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Willis, yesterday that this clause is not about limiting the personal support and counselling services which a local authority may provide or support. We all recognise that many individuals need help and guidance at crises in their lives, so I would say to the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, that nothing in the clause need affect what a local authority does in this field.
Noble Lords have not raised the point, but the clause is not about banning the employment of homosexuals by local authorities. Like all public bodies, local authorities should be, and I am sure are, equal opportunity employers.
What then is the clause about? As I said at the outset, some local authorities have taken it upon themselves to try to change the public attitude to homosexuality by supporting campaigns and undertaking policies to promote homosexuality. This is what the Government think is objectionable and they are inviting Parliament to declare that local authorities should not do so. It may perhaps help the Committee if I try to give an example. I am not claiming that such examples are widespread, nor am I claiming that huge sums of money have been devoted to them. But I am sure that noble Lords would agree that even the expenditure to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred yesterday is too much. Even a small expenditure carefully targeted on
1018
impressionable people can have an effect totally out of proportion to that expenditure.
The example I should like to take, because it seems to epitomise much of the problem, is a "Lesbian Strength and Gay Pride" week which three London boroughs sponsored last summer. We find a wide range of facilities being pressed into service to provide events specifically for homosexuals and clearly aimed at supporting a campaign to promote homosexuality which affronts many people, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, reminded the Committee earlier this afternoon. This shows the need for a provision to be widely based in contrast with the narrower base of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord. Lord Henderson of Brompton, yesterday, or indeed the request by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, to limit matters to the Education Act of 1944.
Most worrying of all the items on the brochure is a display of press cuttings, commentary and photographs of the battle for positive images of lesbians and gays in schools. I do not attempt to pass any artistic judgment on the other films or performances. It may be that individually such items are well worthy of inclusion in a programme of any local authority for the support of the arts. But I would assert that a local authority which deliberately chooses to support a package made up solely of such items is endeavouring to promote homosexuality and has gone beyond what the community at large would regard as the proper task of the local authority. A week's exposure to propaganda of this kind could have an insidious and unhappy lasting effect on some impressionable young people.
Likewise, we have seen some authorities, particularly in London, trying to influence the teaching given in schools so that this element of social engineering is repeated there, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said. Parliament has, of course, taken away the local education authority's direct role in controlling sex education of all kinds in the schools. But we have seen how, by manipulating materials made available to teachers, some local authorities can attempt to exercise by influence what they cannot now achieve by direct instruction.
This clause is not therefore part of some campaign against homosexuals. It is a necessary measure to restrain the activities of a small minority of councils which have gone too far in using their discretionary powers.
I turn now to the question of whether our prescription has undesirable side-effects. We have considered all along that the mischief has lain in some local authorities using their discretionary powers for improper purposes. The legislation that we have supported has, therefore, been dealing with the purposes of the local authorities rather than simply what they do. This has, I believe, been imperfectly understood by some of those who have criticised the clause. We are not trying to say that local authorities shall not undertake certain activities, but that they shall not undertake any activities for certain purposes. It is because we have concentrated on the purpose of the local authority that we think that the

1019
clause cannot cause difficulties in the ways in which Members opposite were attempting to claim.
I have however indicated two areas in which I think that the drafting may be worth further consideration and I have undertaken to come back to the House at a later stage on the wording of the second part of paragraph (a) and, in response to my noble friend Lady Cox, on paragraph (b).
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, repeated the questions which he asked me yesterday. The point I was trying to make in relation to libraries was that everything will depend on the local authority's intention. I apologise if I did not make that clear yesterday when I answered the noble Lord directly. But any of your Lordships who have read what I said in the Official Report and will read tomorrow in the Official Report of the debates later in the evening, will be left in no doubt that that is what 1 was trying to say to the Committee.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to the very fine speech which my noble friend Lady Cox made yesterday in which she drew Members' attention to some of the nastier examples of what local authorities have been doing. It would be wrong for me to repeat them now. In trying to summarise what I have been saying, I have found no clearer statement than that put out by the spokesman for the Opposition in another place when this clause was debated in Committee there. He said:
"It is not and never has been the duty or the responsibility of a local authority or an education authority to promote homosexuality. The Labour Party does not believe that councils or schools should promote homosexuality".
My Lords, we are simply inviting Parliament to say the same.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Lord the Minister has entirely failed to answer the kernel of this question which was put forward in. in my view, a very fine speech this afternoon by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. For those of us who have sat through this debate, both this afternoon and yesterday afternoon, a great deal too much has been said in favour of or against homosexuality. That is not the issue. Nor is the issue what the wording of this clause should be.
The central issue is whether or not central government should interfere in the personal lives of people and in the activities of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, repeated this afternoon the point that I took up with him when we were debating Clause 17. It is for the people to decide. It used to be claimed by members of the Conservative Party that they were opposed to central government interfering in the personal choice of people. I should hope that there are still members of the Conservative Party who hold that principle, because that is what this clause is about. This clause is reducing the civil liberties of the people. It is reducing the civil liberties of the people to determine in their own localities what their elected authorities should do.
Surely we should trust the people in their localities. Surely it is sufficient to say that if a local authority offends the electors in its area then our constitution
1020
gives those people the opportunity of turning it out. That is what this clause hinges on.
It is no good the Minister saying that the clause will allow this or disallow that. He is not the judge, nor can he answer the questions that my noble friend Lord Peston has put. He cannot answer those questions because he is not the judge. This is bad law because it is imprecise. It does not define some of the most important words that are used in the Bill. It is imprecise about the meaning of the words "promote", "homosexuality" and "acceptability". The Minister is not in a position to say whether any book will be withdrawn or whether any person in the teaching profession will be dismissed because of this law.
This clause when it becomes law will open the way to witch-hunts. Perhaps no one in this Chamber will wish to or will engage in a witch-hunt, but we all know that there are people and organisations in this country and outside who would do so. I understand that there are already organisations in the United States which are preparing to finance prosecutions if this clause is included in the law when it is passed.
It is the opening of the way to a reduction of civil liberties that is the central issue here. It is the interference by central government in the responsibilities of local authorities that is the issue in this clause. It is not a question of whether one supports or opposes homosexuality. I believe that we all agree that there should be sex education in schools. The Government themselves have supported that. Any teacher who takes part in any form of sex education, if this clause is left in the Bill, will feel vulnerable to prosecution, not from Members opposite or from anyone in this Chamber but from the groups who can use this clause in order to victimise those whom they wish to stop educating and informing children when they are not indoctrinating or promoting anything.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to reinforce one point. In so doing I can provide continuity with the past in this Chamber, because some years ago I was the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench during a day of debate on this subject. At that time we had two sexual offences Bills before us. Today we are considering one clause. It may be thought that to have taken two sex Bills in one day was too much even for this Chamber with its notable capacity for expediting business.
I wish to support very strongly a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Young people at an impressionable age though basically heterosexual can be led into homosexuality even if it is for a temporary period. This can cause great confusion to them, upsetting their lives, their careers and their prospects of marriage.
That was the principle which was accepted by the House in 1976. If my memory serves me right, that occurred on 14th June of that year when most of the noble Lords who spoke in this debate today were not Members of this Chamber. That principle was accepted then and noble Lords voted out one of the Bills but passed the other sexual offences Bill through all its stages, thereby showing their tolerance for

1021
homosexuals but showing that they were not prepared to accept the advertisement or promotion of homosexuality.
4.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 202; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fitt, L.

Aldington, L.

Foley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allerton, L.

Gainford, L.

Arran, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Atholl, D.

Galpern, L.

Attlee, E.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bagot, L.

Goold, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Grantchester, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bellwin, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Haddington, E.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Borthwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bramall, L.

Harvington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Havers, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Henley, L.

Burton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hives, L.

Caccia, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ilchester, E.

Carnock, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Kearton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cox, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Croft, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cross, V.

London, Bp.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Luke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Lurgan, L.

Deedes, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Derwent, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Dulverton, L.

Manton, L.

Dundee, E.

Mar, C.

Elibank, L.

Margadale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Merrivale, L.

Erroll or Hale, L.

Mersey, V.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Milne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

1022

Monk Bretton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Monson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Moran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

Slim, V.

Mottistone, L.

Somers, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Munster, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Nelson, E.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinton, E.

Orkney, E.

Terrington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Teynham, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Pym, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Torphichen, L.

Renton, L.

Trafford, L.

Ridley, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ullswater, V.

Rodney, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Sackville, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Salisbury, M.

Whaddon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Savile, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Wynford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Yarborough, E.

Shannon, E.

Young, B.

Shepherd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Glenamara, L.

Annan, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Banks, L.

Grimond, L.

Barnett, L.

Hampden, V.

Basnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Hayter, L.

Birkett, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hunt, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Caradon, L.

Jay, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kennet, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Killearn, L.

Davies, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kissin, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lawrence, L.

Leatherland, L.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Dowding, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ennals, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Foot, L.

Milford, L.

1023

Mishcon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Molloy, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monkswell, L.

Simon, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Soper, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stallard, L.

Mulley, L.

Stedman, B.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Parry, L.

Underhill, L.

Peston, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Raglan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rochester, Bp.

York, Abp.

Seear, B.

Zuckerman, L.

Serota, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 28, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
[Interruption.]
5.8 p.m.
Clause 29 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 120BA:
After Clause 29. insert the following new clause:
("Additional powers for auditors of local authorities etc.
—(1) After section 25 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall be inserted the sections set out in Schedule [Sections to he inserted in Part III of Local Government Finance Act 1982] to this Act.
(2) In section I6of that Act (auditor's right to obtain documents and information) for the words " for the purposes of the audit", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "for the purposes of his functions under this Act".
(3) This section and that Schedule shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) This section and that Schedule shall extend to England and Wales only.").
The noble Earl said: in speaking to Amendment No. 120BA, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 120F. The new clause and schedule empower—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. The microphones are not working and we are having difficulty in hearing him.
The Earl of Caithness: This new clause and the new schedule empower auditors to take early action to secure the compliance by authorities with the law governing their financial affairs. These provisions arise from widespread dissatisfaction over the long delays in auditors bringing proceedings where authorities have disregarded or deliberately flouted the law. The surcharge cases which arose from the late rate-making in 1985 have illustrated just how long such an action can take to be resolved. The auditor is still progressing his inquiries in four London boroughs nearly three years after the event.
Where, as at present, action is taken after the event, I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is important that everyone should have the chance to have their case heard and the matter properly investigated. If that involves oral hearings and
1024
appeals in the courts, the matter will be more prolonged but it is in the interests of justice. Meanwhile such delays are costly. They cause frustration to those who wish to see action taken to redress wrongdoing and to bring those responsible to justice. They are a source of continuing uncertainty to those directly involved. We believe that it is partly as a result of that protractive and costly procedure that the auditors have sometimes appeared reluctant to exercise to the full their existing powers.
In considering audit procedures the Widdicombe Committee acknowledged those criticisms. The provisions in the amendments derive from the committee's recommendations that the audit service should be empowered to apply legal remedies more quickly to stop a local authority incurring unlawful expenditure or loss. We consulted widely on the Widdicombe Committee's report and we also consulted local government and the accountancy profession on our specific proposals in this area. The responses of those bodies that indicated agreement to their views being made public have been placed in the Library.
The general effect of the amendments is to enable the appointed auditor of an authority to act directly to issue an order to prevent the authority from incurring unlawful expenditure or loss or from entering an unlawful item of account. Auditors will also be able to make an application to the courts for judicial review of a decision or failure to act by an authority which would have an effect on the accounts.
I do not submit that substantial breaches of the law by authorities—and it is against such that these powers are addressed—are a frequent or widespread occurrence, but we have seen how the attempts of certain authorities to defy and evade government expenditure controls have led to the erosion of sound financial management practices. As a result, several of those authorities are courting financial disaster. Some of the practices employed are grossly imprudent and others are apparently illegal. Where there are significant breaches of the law in prospect, whether of statute or common law fiduciary duty, these provisions will equip the auditor to deal with them quickly and to ensure that the authority's finances remain on a proper and lawful footing.
I believe that these amendments extend the scope of the existing audit legislation in an important and sensible way. In giving auditors the power to challenge unlawful actions at an early stage, we can reduce the risk of authorities getting into difficulties as a result of spending illegally or incurring unlawful losses, and also reduce in the future the need for long and difficult surcharge cases. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The degree of astonishment that I felt when these amendments were tabled has now been compounded by the brevity (and undoubted clarity) with which the Minister puts them forward. There is now proposed—and after the second Marshalled List the amendment was starred on the third Marshalled List—a new schedule which is well over two pages long on a totally new subject.

1025
With barely 24 hours' notice we are expected to absorb the import of that schedule and to treat it at Committee stage with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves. We are expected to have prepared amendments to the many features to which we may object and to agree that that is a proper parliamentary procedure for a Bill which has already passed through the House of Commons and comes to us in the middle of its consideration. I put to the Committee that this method of proceeding is totally unacceptable. The Government ought to be ashamed to put to the Committee at this stage of its proceedings a schedule of such length and complexity.
I have already spoken about this matter to my noble friend the Chief Whip. I appreciate that it is a matter for the usual channels but the very least that can be done in compensation for this outrage to our procedures is that there should be at least another half-day given to the Bill at Report stage. I warn the Government that if there is no flexibility toward that modest demand, we shall have to find other ways of ensuring that we perform our responsibility as a revising Chamber in this matter.
It is not merely a matter of the timing; it is a matter of the appropriateness of these amendments for this Bill. The Widdicombe Committee, which was asked by the Government to consider these matters, reported on the role not only of auditors but also of the chief financial officers of local authorities. The legislation concerning chief financial officers is not coming before this Chamber in this Bill but is going before another place in another Bill. Yet the whole of the Widdicombe Report's argument about financial controls on local authorities deals quite properly and necessarily with the role of the auditors and of chief financial officers together because they are complementary.
We are being asked to consider not only something which is very complicated and very late but also something which is partial and which even at the best of times and with the best of motives cannot be treated adequately by this Chamber as part of a piece of legislation. One hesitates to use a word such as "outrageous" but the combination of those two factors together with the brevity with which the Minister has introduced the new clause and schedule are an outrage to our procedures. I protest about it in the strongest possible terms.
Having said that, needless to say it will not be possible for me to deal in detail with the content of the schedule and I must reserve my position and that of my noble friends for a later stage. I can assure the Minister that there will be a large number of necessary amendments. However, it is possible and necessary to say a few words about the origin of this new schedule and to consider not only its appropriateness in this Bill but also whether it flows from the facts that have been presented by the Minister.
As the noble Earl said, the Widdicombe Committee recommended that there should be changes in financial controls for local authorities. However, the changes that it recommended were in
1026
no way the same as those that are now being put forward by the Government in this schedule.
First of all, Widdicombe said that there should be greater powers for the reports of the district auditors to be circulated and made public. Secondly, it said that the power of surcharge, which is at present in the hands of the auditors, should be transferred to the Audit Commission. Thirdly, it said that the Audit Commission should have the powers to seek interim injunctions, which would deal to a large extent with the problems of timing of financial controls to which the noble Earl referred, and powers to seek to get expedited hearings for writs of mandamus against local authorities in cases of the kind of abuse to which the noble Earl referred, although he did not give any useful detail.
It is noticeable that in paragraph 9.45 of the Widdicombe Report there is reference to the fact that auditors can, and already do, intervene at an early stage when they think there is something badly wrong with a local authority's finance. The report refers in particular to the action of the auditors with regard to the accounts for the City of Liverpool in the financial year 1985–86. The auditors sought a certificate of wilful misconduct against the authority and succeeded, without the delays to which reference has been made, in ensuring that the city council came to heel on financial matters.
However, the formal powers of auditors to intervene are only a last resort. Any sensible auditor will, as so many of them do, make informal representations to a local authority long before the stage is reached of using formal powers or going to court on a question of wilful misconduct. That is what the auditors do and that is why their work has been so effective. But even if there were defects in the powers of auditors—and that has yet to be shown—why are the Government choosing a totally different route from that recommended by the Widdicombe Committee? Why are they refusing to give the powers that they claim are necessary to the Audit Commission rather than to the district auditors?
This is no mere matter of administration because the powers that the Government are now seeking to give to the auditors are powers, in the view of the Widdicombe Committee—with which I agree—that will imperil the relationship between elected members of an authority and the district auditor. If they are going to have an effective, complementary role in controlling the expenditure of a local authority, they must have a degree of mutual self-confidence and respect that will be damaged only by the powers now envisaged.
Finally, the legal implications of the new schedule are horrifying. Councils are already well accustomed —far too well accustomed in the view of many of us—to take legal advice before they take any step. The reason for that may be in their own hands. It may also be in the hands of a Government who are continuing to impose new restrictions on local authorities. But legal expenditure in seeking to verify or otherwise the validity of some item of expenditure has greatly increased in recent years.

1027
What is the prospect now before us? It is that there will be a dispute between the auditors and the local authority in which the local authority will take legal advice, the auditors will take legal advice and we shall have litigation between the auditors and the local authority. That is an insane prospect. It is one that can give pleasure only to the legal profession. It cannot give pleasure to the ratepayers, who are responsible for the local authority's side of it, or the taxpayers, who are responsible for the Government's side of it. For that reason alone the prima facie case for an issue that has been thrust in so untimely a manner before us cannot be sustained.
This schedule deserves much more careful attention and much more rigorous examination than it can possibly receive this afternoon. It will certainly receive that at a later stage. I very much hope that, even if the noble Earl is unable to reply to the specific points made, he will consult his noble friends and the usual channels and seek to ensure that we have an adequate opportunity for debate on this at a later stage.
The Earl of Caithness: I fully accept my share of the responsibility for putting down this amendment. The reason I thought it right to put the amendment down was that I remember being in Opposition when clauses and schedules of this size were put down at a late stage. I always felt that the earlier I saw them the better. I thought that Members opposite would prefer me to put it down, late though it is, at Committee stage for immediate comment than to wait for Report stage. I always felt in Opposition that that was the right thing for the Government to do.
I apologise for the amendment being so late. However, as the noble Lord is fully aware, there has been much consultation. It is indeed that consultation that has led us to redraft the provisions of the schedule and has accounted for some of the lateness. I apologise to him. I was trying to be helpful. I realise that it was short notice for an amendment and a schedule of this size but I felt that the noble Lord would prefer me to put it down as quickly as possible rather than the day after the Committee stage had finished.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is absolutely right in saying that the auditor has powers to challenge—indeed he has under the Local Government Finance Act 1982—anything illegal and which causes a loss or deficiency, including unlawful expenditure. But when the auditor can act is a time-delayed event, because it happens after the accounts have been finalised and the full picture has emerged. It is then that the discussions and the letters that arise take place and are sent from one party to the other and, if necessary, the oral hearings take place before the courts step in.
What we thought was right, having considered what Widdicombe had to say about it, was that in view of the length of time to which I referred in my opening speech—here we are some three years after the event with the court cases still going on—the auditor ought to be able to say at an earlier stage to the local authority that the actions it is likely to be
1028
taking are probably illegal or against its fiduciary duty. There is then a period of seven days in which the auditor has to come up with reasons.
The reason that we have given seven days is that quite clearly experience has shown that some local authorities hide things from the auditors until the very last minute. Therefore if the auditor has to act very quickly—and do not forget that at the end of the day we are talking about a possible surcharge on the councillors—surely it is right that we should permit him to act quickly and then give him the appropriate seven days in which to look at the full facts. At the end of those seven days matters are taken a stage further. If the councillors—the local authority—do not accept the advice of the auditor, the matter can go to the High Court.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked why it is the auditor rather than the Audit Commission? The Widdicombe Committee felt that the powers for pre-emptive action should lie with the Audit Commission whereas the amendment places the power with the auditor. Our provisions accord with the view of the commission and with many of those who commented on Widdicombe or on our consultation document on these proposals.
There are obvious practical difficulties in giving a power for swift action to a commission which normally meets once a month. A moment ago I highlighted a situation when quick action was needed. Those apart, we recognise how difficult it would be for the commission, made up as it is of a balance of interests including active politicians, to retain its unity in making decisions to take action against councils. It is the auditor who must assemble the evidence and we believe that it is the auditor who is best placed to decide whether a case exists to invoke statutory sanctions.
Widdicombe also recommended that the power to restrain a local authority from incurring unlawful expenditure should be exercised through seeking an injunction. The amendment provides for the auditor to be able to act directly to issue a prohibition notice. This follows the suggestion put to us by the Audit Commission and has, we believe, advantages over the Widdicombe proposal. In many cases the need for litigation would be avoided and the auditor would be able to take immediate action where there is urgency. I also believe that by placing these new powers with the auditor we enhance his authority and standing as the person responsible for overseeing and certifying the regularity and propriety of local government expenditure.
I conclude by saying that I appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have no wish to stifle debate. The sheer fact that we have managed to table these amendments during the Committee stage has led to a useful exchange. I look forward to a much more detailed discussion on the points that I am sure he will raise at a later stage.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the matter is put to the vote, let me thank the Minister for those last remarks. I assure him that it is always my policy to attack governments, this Government in

1029
particular, and not individual Ministers. Will he be good enough not only to bring the attention of his noble friend the Chief Whip to what he and I have said, but to do so personally and to thrust it into his hand? The case has never been more clearly put than it was in his own words for extra time on Report than the two days which were allocated before this new clause was put down.
The Earl of Caithness: I see the Opposition Chief Whip there and in that case I tread even more carefully than I would normally when it comes to discussing the usual channels. Of course I hear what the noble Lord says. I shall discuss it with my noble friend the Chief Whip. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Local government administration]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120C:
Page 37. line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (2) and (3) shall he omitted.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 120C I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 120D. These amendments both refer to the role of the commissioner for administration, who is known to most of us as the local authority ombudsman. We are seeking to take the opportunity of the Bill—and I argue that it falls fairly within the Long Title—to make improvements in the provision for local authority ombudsmen, the way in which their business is initiated and the way in which it can be conducted and made effective.
On reflection it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 120E. Amendments 120C and 120D arise because of the regrettable unwillingness of a minority of local councillors to refer matters which are raised with them, such as allegations of maladministration by their local authority, to the local authority ombudsmen. Evidence has been produced by Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, that some 20 per cent. of councillors resist the idea that they should refer matters to the local authority ombudsman and are found unhelpful by their constituents in doing so.
As a local authority councillor I was very pleased to refer matters raised with me by my constituents to the local authority ombudsman. It required extra work from me because I had to give additional evidence in support of the claim, but it was easier to do that than to find my way through the vast bureaucracy of the Greater London Council, as it then was, to seek redress directly. The Greater London Council, when a report from the ombudsman found that allegations of maladministration were justified, was never in my experience unwilling to take action as a result. There may be other councillors and other councils in different parts of the country that have different experiences on that latter point. That is the reason for Amendment No. 120E.
What is proposed is that there should, if necessary, be a direct power of reference to the local commissioner, to the local authority ombudsman, and we believe that that will expedite and strengthen the hands of local authority ombudsmen and strengthen the power of constituents to question the judgment and administration of local authorities in the areas in which they live.
Amendment No. 120E is on a similar point, but it relates to the fact that unfortunately there is good evidence—this often gains a lot of publicity in the press—that local authorities, even when maladministration has been found, do not effectively or at all take action to remedy it. There have been well-publicised cases when electors have been forced to go back to the local authority ombudsman or to make further public protests and have suffered substantial delays in putting matters right because local authorities have not been helpful in that regard.
In case anybody should think that we on these Benches are uncritical supporters of local authorities and local government in all circumstances, I believe that the amendments give the lie to such an allegation. We are concerned not only for the rights of local authorities, but much more with the rights of local authority electors. It is possible that in such a complicated matter with such complicated amendments the Minister will find fault with the detail of the amendments. He may even find fault—I always worry when I see a frown on the face of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—with the placing of the amendments in the Bill. All I ask at this stage, if he feels as I do that there is justification behind the spirit and the impetus of these amendments, is for him to undertake to see whether it is possible to give effect to them in a better way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord has argued very persuasively in favour of the two original amendments, Nos. 120C and 120D, which would provide members of the public with direct access to the local commissioner for administration instead of having to refer complaints through a member of the authority concerned. I understand his concern that we should not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of individuals wishing to complain to the local ombudsman. This was also the concern of the Widdicombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business, which also recommended that complainants should have direct access to the local ombudsman.
Naturally I hope that the majority of councillors who receive complaints from their constitutents will do all they can either to get the matter resolved or to pass the complaint on to the local ombudsman, even if it is one with which they disagreed. Indeed it was in the hope that councillors would be able to resolve some complaints to the satisfaction of all parties without having to involve the ombudsman that this stage was originally included in the procedure.
Nevertheless I can see that some complainants may be deterred by having to take their complaint to a local councillor, perhaps because they do not know the name of their councillor, because he is from the wrong political party or just because they associate

1031
all councillors too closely with the authority against which they are complaining. I am unable to give any commitment at this stage, but if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw Amendments Nos. 120C and 120D, I promise to consider the matter further before the next stage.
Turning now to Amendment No. 120E, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's concern about local authorities which have refused to comply with the findings of the local ombudsman and have failed to provide a satisfactory remedy where injustice has been found. Since the local ombudsman service was set up in 1974 there have been 135 such cases in England and Wales, representing about 6 per cent. of investigations where injustice has been found. Although this is a relatively small proportion of cases, there is no doubt that these failures cause a particularly marked sense of grievance for the complainants concerned and tend to undermine the credibility of the system as a whole. I therefore accept the need to try to improve the rate of compliance.
The amendment would deal with this problem by giving complainants the right to apply to the court for a satisfactory remedy. This was another of the Widdicombe recommendations and one which we are currently considering. It would, however, involve a radical change in the whole concept of the local ombudsman as an informal investigatory procedure. If local authorities know that the findings of the ombudsman may be enforced by the courts they are likely to be much less forthcoming and co-operative in investigations and the whole procedure would take on a more formal and quasi-legal character. Complainants might find the process more intimidating and for that reason judicial enforcement of remedies would be undesirable.
Nevertheless, the Government are examining alternative ways of improving the rate of compliance. The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has suggested that it should have a role in calling recalcitrant councils to account. That is an interesting not to say novel idea and we shall be responding to the Select Committee very shortly.
In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that, in view of what I have said, it is perhaps inopportune to say much more. I give the noble Lord the undertaking that as soon as we have replied to the Select Committee I shall provide him with a copy of it because it embraces many other points connected with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks on Amendments Nos. 120C, 120D and 120E. I realise that they go towards meeting what I am asking for in different degrees. However, on the basis of his assurances in respect of Amendments Nos. 120C and 120D, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 120C.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 120D and 120E not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 120F:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule:
("Sections to be inserted in Part III of Local Government Finance Act 1982.
Power of auditor to issue prohibition order
25A.—(l) The person who is for the time being the auditor in relation to the accounts of any body whose accounts are required to be audited in accordance with this Part of this Act may issue an order under this section (in this Part referred to as a "prohibition order") if he has reason to believe that the body or any officer of the body—

(a) is about to make or has made a decision which involves or would involve the body incurring expenditure which is unlawful; or

(b) is about to take or has taken a course of action which, if pursued to its conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss of deficiency; or

(c) is about to enter an item of account, the entry of which is unlawful:

and for the purposes of this section and section 25B below, the actions of a committee or sub-committee of the body or of any other person (not being an officer) authorised to act on behalf of the body shall be treated as the actions of the body itself.
(2) a prohibition order is one—

(a) which is addressed to the body or officer concerned;

(b) which specifies the paragraph of subsection (1) above which is relevant and the decision, course of action or item of account to which the order relates;

(c) which specifies the date on which (subject to subsection (5) below) the order is to take effect, being a date not earlier than the date of service of a copy of the order in accordance with paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) below; and

(d) which requires the body or officer concerned to desist from making or implementing the decision, taking or continuing to take the course of action or, as the case may be, entering the item of account in question.

(3) Where two or more auditors are appointed in relation to the accounts of any body, the power to issue a prohibition order may be exercised by the auditors acting jointly or by such one of them as they may determine; and, in relation to such an order, any reference in subsections (4) and (5) below to the auditor is a reference to the auditor or auditors by whom the order is issued.
(4) A copy of a prohibition order—

(a) shall be served on the body to which, or to an officer of which, it is addressed; and

(b) in the case of an order addressed to an officer, shall also be served on him; and

(c) may be served on such other person or persons as appears to the auditor to be appropriate.

(5) A prohibition order shall not have effect unless, not later than the end of the period of seven days beginning on the date of service referred to in subsection (2)(c) above, the auditor serves on the body concerned and on any officer on whom a copy of the order was served under subsection (4)(b) above, a statement of the auditor's reasons for the belief referred to in subsection (1) above.
(6) Any copy of an order or statement which under this section is to be served on an officer of a body shall be served on him by addressing it to him and by delivering it to him or leaving it at, or sending it by post, to the office at which he is employed.
(7) A prohibition order may at any time be revoked (but not varied) by the person who is for the time being the auditor in relation to the accounts of the body to which or to an officer of which the order was addressed.
Effect of and appeals against prohibition orders
25B.—(1) So long as a prohibition order has effect, it shall not be lawful for the body concerned or any officer of that body to make or implement the decision, to take or continue to take the course of action or, as the case may be, to enter the item of account to which the order relates.
(2) A prohibition order—

(a) takes effect, subject to subsection (5) of section 25A above, on the date specified in the order in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of that section; and

1033

(b) continues to have effect, subject to any order or decision of the High Court on an appeal under subsection (3) below, until revoked under section 25A(7) above.

(3) Not later than twenty-eight days after the service under section 25A(5) above of a statement of reasons relating to a prohibition order, the body concerned (but not any officer of that body) may appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court.
(4) On an appeal against a prohibition order under subsection (3) above, the High Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment by the body concerned of expenses incurred by the auditor in connection with the appeal.
(5) Any expenses reasonably incurred by the auditor in or in connection with the issue of a prohibition order shall be recoverable by him from the body concerned.
(6) In this section "the body concerned", in relation to a prohibition order, means the body to which, or to an officer of which, the order is addressed.
Supplementary provisions as to prohibition order
25C.—( 1) In any case where—

(a) before a prohibition order is issued, a body enters into a contract to dispose of or acquire an interest in land, and

(b) before the disposal or acquisition is completed, a prohibition order takes effect as a result of which it is unlawful for the body to complete the disposal or acquisition,

the existence of the prohibition order shall not prejudice any remedy in damages which may be available to any person by reason of the body's failure to complete the contract.
(2) No action shall lie against an auditor in respect of any loss or damage alleged to have been caused by reason of the issue of a prohibition order which was issued in good faith; but nothing in this subsection affects the right of a court to award costs against an auditor on an appeal under section 25B(3) above.
Power of auditor to apply for judicial review
25D.—(1) Subject to section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (no application for judicial review without leave) the auditor appointed in relation to the accounts of a body may make an application for judicial review with respect to—

(a) any decision of that body, or

(b) any failure by that body to act,

which (in either case) it is reasonable to believe would have an effect on the accounts of that body.
(2) The existence of the powers conferred on an auditor under this Part of this Act shall not be regarded as a ground for refusing an application falling within subsection (1) above (or an application for leave to make such an application).
(3) On an application for judicial review made as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment by the body to whose decision the application relates of expenses incurred by the auditor in connection with the application.").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Amendment of Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 30, leave out lines 8 to 14 and insert—
("(3) Before undertaking or promoting any study under this section the Commission, having regard to the needs and financial resources of local government, shall consult and reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the work to be undertaken and the financing thereof and shall consult such associations of employees as appear to it to be appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 121 as set out on the Marshalled List. As it stands, the clause requires prior consultation before undertaking studies to allow for value for money in local authority work. The effect of the amendment, which strengthens the clause, is to require the commission to have regard to the views and financial resources of local authorities, and to reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We believe that it should be carried out not on an individual authority basis but on a general basis—on the basis of the work to be undertaken and the financing thereof.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities fully acknowledges the importance of value for money, as do all local authorities. However, it has pointed out that it is basically the responsibility of a local authority to satisfy itself of the efficiency of its arrangements to secure good value and that the provision of services exist. Authorities have different arrangements for achieving that. The Government do not dissent from that view but they would emphasise the benefits of arrangements to disseminate and share the experience. Again, that is a matter with which local authorities and the convention would agree. They would also agree with the fact that an outside agency can frequently bring a fresh perspective to a problem and can frequently be helpful.
One of the difficulties is that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made the fair point that any value-for-money study creates costs in the form of fees and charges made by consultants and by the fact that an outsider has been brought in and a revaluation must be carried out. That costs money. It confirms the importance of having effective arrangements for the passing on of information of general application and capitalising on existing work wherever possible; so that it is not a case of one job being done for a local authority but no lessons being learned by another. The convention has expressed the hope that the commission for local authority accounts in Scotland and the Audit Commission will in the future consider joint projects or programmes where they seem appropriate. I believe that the proposed slight alteration to Clause 33(3) would meet those points. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his explanation. As I understand the proposed amendment, it would have a number of effects, not all of which I assume are intended. First, it would remove the requirement on the account commission, before undertaking or promoting any value-for-money study, to consult associations of local authorities, and it would instead require the commission to reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on any proposed study. It is certainly true that in present circumstances CoSLA is the one association of local authorities operating in Scotland. That need not always be so and it is therefore undesirable to specify so precisely in statute that it and only it should be consulted.
It is also the case that by requiring the commission to reach agreement with CoSLA the amendment

1035
would give CoSLA the right of veto on any proposed value-for-money study. That is surely going too far and would put CoSLA in a position that I find difficult to believe it would want. It would then be liable to all kinds of sectional pressures. For example, what if one authority, or one tier of an authority, wanted to avoid a particular study at all costs and another was an enthusiastic supporter? I think CoSLA already finds itself in that kind of difficulty often enough and it does not need this amendment to increase its difficulties. Apart from that point, it is surely wrong in principle that CoSLA, representing as it does the local authority interests, should be given so much power in the matter. I do not think that that would be desirable.
As a general point, I am also unhappy about putting forward vague phrases in legislation such as:
"having regard to the needs and financial resources of local government".
What, for example, would the accounts commission make of that? From what perspective would it have regard to these matters? The perspective from which we start in proposing these value-for-money powers is to assist local authorities in meeting their needs and operating within their financial resources in the most effective way. As a result, I think that this phrase in the amendment is misleading.
Secondly, the effect of the amendment would be to remove any obligation on the accounts commission to consult those bodies other than local authorities whose accounts they audit. Thus, if the amendment were to be adopted, the accounts commission could embark on value-for-money studies in all the police and fire joint bodies, the various river purification boards, the Forth and Tay joint bridge boards, various valuation committees and other bodies, without consulting those bodies or taking account of their views at all. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would not wish to produce that particular threat.
However, regarding the substance of Clause 33, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is absolutely right to emphasise the need for agreement and co-operation between the accounts commission and local authorities. I do not believe that this amendment would help in that respect; I think that it would be counter-productive. As a result, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would be able to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his reply. I can understand the point he made about the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities being the only existing body and that there may be others in the future. I am sure that that position can easily be overcome by providing for such other bodies as the Secretary of State may wish to consult. However, the Minister made a meaty reply and there are a number of issues that I shall wish to digest. I shall take the matter away and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 122:
1036
Page 30, leave out lines 15 to 24.
The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be convenient to take Amendment No. 123 with Amendment No. 122.
Amendment No. 122 really deals with the powers of the commission and the fact that as it stands in this Section 97B the commission could ask for the information on a blanket basis and could ask for rather too much information. The hope is that the Minister will take this away and look at it and realise that selective information is probably all that the Audit Commission would genuinely require.
In addition, the bodies should not be compelled to provide information which would be provided voluntarily in any case if the local authority felt that the information required by the Audit Commission was totally justifiable. In other words, the commission has obligations as well, and one of its obligations should be to justify why it requires certain information.
Amendment No. 123 really emphasis the point that the power of the commission to compel the provision of information which is justifiable in their terms, if this is not supplied, would involve the potential creation of a criminal offence in a local authority. That is rather too much power to give. I can hardly believe that the Government really intend that that should be the outcome of their demanding the rights within those terms. Therefore I hope the Government will look at this amendment, as I am sure they have done, and give a favourable reply. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of the Committee, like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 122 and 123.
The effect of these two amendments, if adopted, would be to negate the principle of Clause 33. The proposed new Section 97A places a duty on the accounts commission to undertake or promote studies with the object of improving the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of services by local authorities and by certain other bodies. We cannot place that obligation on the commission and then deny it an important part of the means to carry out its duty. Nevertheless, I would readily concede to the noble Lord that it will be better for the accounts commission to proceed in the exercise of its value-for-money functions where possible with the agreement and co-operation of local authorities. To some extent it would be fair to say that if it needs to brandish the proposed new Section 97B at local authorities it will have failed in its task. While the commission will be able, under our proposals, to require the production of information on documents, it cannot require local authorities to pay heed to its subsequent reports and recommendations. So it is desirable that so far as possible these matters proceed by agreement.
However, that is not to say that a back-up power will not be helpful. In the first place, the existence of such a power in the background will often encourage local authorities or their officers or members to think twice about refusing access to information or documents. It should lead them to consider critically what their reasons for refusal are. There is an analogy

1037
with Ministers' powers of direction in relation to nationalised industries. These powers are rarely if ever used except with regard to mundane issues such as forms of account; but the fact that they exist as a long stop has the important effect of encouraging co-operation and reasonableness on both sides.
Moreover, I hope the Committee will note the safeguard that is built into both the subsections of this Section 97B. In subsection (1) it is made clear that the information the commission may ask for is only information that it may reasonably require for the discharge of the functions under this part of the Act. In subsection (2) there is the safeguard that anyone failing to provide information so required will only be liable to penalty if he is acting without reasonable excuse. Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, expressed the fear that rather too much information might be demanded if one were not careful. I hope that what I have just said may go some way in giving him reassurance to the contrary.
It seems important that while we are not only asking a body to take on certain new work but actually placing it under a statutory duty to take on that work we cannot deny it such powers as it may require to carry out the duty effectively. That is what the proposed Section 97B does, and it does it with what we think are the right kind of safeguards.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am very glad to have heard the Minister's reply. If the commission and the local authority takes his point of view "reasonable" should he the watchword of both sides when they are dealing with the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Commutation of smallholdings payments.
Any annual or other periodic payments under the terms of any settlement in respect of amounts payable under section 27 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 which, apart from this section, would fall to be made to a county council or district council by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State may be commuted by him into a single payment, either by agreement with that council or, in default of agreement, by an order made by him in that behalf.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 124.
This new clause will enable agriculture Ministers in England and Wales to commute into a single payment, either by agreement with the individual councils or in default of agreement by order, payments made under the Land Settlement Facilities Act 1919 for the losses they incurred in first establishing smallholding estates after the First World War.
Under successive smallholding legislation local authorities have been empowered to provide farms for people who have some training or experience in agriculture but who lack the considerable financial resources needed to farm on their own account. Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919 smallholdings were intended for the settlement of
1038
demobilised ex-servicemen, and as part of this policy the losses in providing these holdings were to be borne by the Government. The current method of calculation was introduced in 1926 and is known as the "1926 Settlement".
This was a series of agreements between the Minister of Agriculture and individual councils for the payment of a schedule of prefixed amounts to be paid in half-yearly instalments on a diminishing scale. These payments represent the amounts by which each council's smallholdings loan charges consisting mainly of repayments of loan principal and interest exceed its net annual income for each year until the forecast annual losses have been extinguished.
It is generally recognised that commutation of these payments would be an administrative convenience to central and local government; otherwise in some cases payments would continue until the year 2003. Primary legislation is however necessary to remove the restrictions in the Act which oblige Ministers to take the half-yearly payments. Section 64(1) of the Local Government Act 1985 provided the necessary powers to commute the payments due to the GLC and MCCs but the scope of the legislation did not allow this to be extended to other councils. I understand that commutation of the payments will only take place after full consultation with the appropriate local authority associations and the individual councils.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Abolition of duty on dog licences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Irving of Dartford: A licence of 37p, collected from only 50 per cent. of dog owners costing the Treasury £3·5 million to collect, is clearly nonsense. However, as my noble friend Lord Houghton indicated in his report in 1976 on dog warden schemes, an increased and properly managed licence could form the soundest way of ensuring a proper system for the control of dogs.
In abolishing the licence, as Clause 34 does, the Government leave us with no satisfactory method of dealing with the serious problem concerning the control of dogs which will still remain. In abandoning the licence, the Government are abandoning the system which they introduced into Northern Ireland and which is running successfully there. Veterinarians, farmers, environmental health officers, major welfare organisations (like the RSPCA), charities and local authorities have all campaigned for that for a long time as being the most sensible way of dealing with problems concerning dogs. If anything, the Government are taking a step backwards as the money now collected from the existing dog licences, albeit a minor amount, at present goes to the local authorities and that will no longer be available.
There are two factors which I believe should be taken into account. The first is that unless there is a method of clearly identifying the owner, the enforcement of legislation, particularly of the by-laws which the Government have recently promulgated,

1039
will be almost impossible. Secondly, the Government's view that problems can be dealt with by the requirement that every dog must have a collar is invalidated by the fact that in a house where there is multiple occupation, that does not clearly indicate which occupant owns the dog. The Government have said that local authorities can choose to provide a dog warden service, as any other local service; but local authorities—and I am a member of a local authority—are under great financial pressure and the competing claims on funds makes it impossible to deal with these problems in that way.
In moving the amendment, we are seeking to discover the Government's intention as to what they propose to do about the problems of dog control. At the Committee stage in another place a similar amendment moved by a Conservative member was narrowly defeated by 17 votes to 14, so there is clearly much concern about the problem on both sides of the Committee.
There are many aspects of the problem. First, there is the need to re-unite stray dogs with their owners as quickly as possible and to reduce the harrowing slaughter of thousands of dogs a year. Secondly, there is the need to achieve reliable certification by veterinary surgeons in relation to vaccination, worming and the encouragement of spaying. Thirdly, there is a need for reliable registration of pedigree dogs for showing and breeding purposes. Fourthly, there should be the ability in the case of cruelty to dogs to identify the owner of the dog for the purposes of the protection accorded in the Dogs Act 1933. Fifthly, there should be a means of enforcing legislation relating to the protection of livestock and in respect of attacks by dogs on postmen and others and of the new by-laws relating to the fouling of public places. These can only be enforced and monitored by dog wardens. Finally, the clear identification of dogs and owners is necessary in the event of a rabies outbreak.
If the Government abandon the licence and refuse to fund a dog warden service, how do they propose to deal with these problems? Representatives of JACOPS, which is the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society of which my noble friend Lord Houghton is president and I am chairman, is an umbrella organisation which has in membership almost every organisation concerned with the welfare of animals and particularly dogs. The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, environmental health officers and local authorities have been discussing these matters in a working group between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. A system of registration has been discussed although I must emphasise that no firm proposals have been made for such a scheme.
There are several ways in which registration could be achieved. One is that there could be an initial one-time charge for registration. That will be carried out by the local authorities, who would issue a disc and form particulars of a register to be maintained nationally. The scheme could be self-financing. The initial charge for registration would raise enough money to install the register and also provide enough money to enable local authorities to maintain dog
1040
warden schemes. There would need to be a statutory requirement to register and we illustrated what this might be on the amendment on the Marshalled List.
I want to emphasise that none of us has taken a decision about that and the matter is under discussion. Therefore I wish to revert to the general question of dogs. It is clear that there is need for a new Dogs Act to embrace the nearly 30 enactments over 150 years which are at present on the statute book. There is need to hand over the powers currently held by the police for dealing with stray dogs—and the police do not really want the power because they do not have the staff to carry it through—to local authorities. We would prefer to have a dog licence which could raise the money to provide dog wardens to carry out this work. However, I submit that the Government should not wash their hands of the problem and expect local authorities to foot the bill from their already overstretched resources. We need some indication of the Government's intention of dealing with this problem seriously or we shall be forced to divide the Committee.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I believe that it is quite ludicrous of the Government—though it makes economic sense not to collect the 7s.6d at the cost of well over £1—to run away from the problem which exists in town and country regarding dogs. The Government boast about tackling the problem of aggressors 8,000 miles away successfully, opposing the might of the NUM—all sorts of things that have altered the face of Britain—and yet they have completely run away from the simple fact of the dog owner, who they think is a powerful, economic or political force. That is absolutely rubbish! More people in this country resent the mess that dogs make and the damage they do than would resent some effort at control. I hope that the Minister is listening carefully instead of scribbling on his prepared brief because the damage is self-evident to everybody in this Committee. We have the extraordinary problem of not thousands but hundreds of thousands of dogs a year being destroyed. I have seen a figure quoted of 1,000 a day from responsible organisations. There is the appalling business of people giving presents at Christmas, and a fortnight later when the responsibility of looking after the dog becomes apparent, they are taken to the vet to be destroyed (if the owners are semi-reasonable) or simply thrown out into the street. There are even cases of dogs being thrown from cars which are travelling along motorways at 70 miles an hour. That is a well known scandal and obviously something must be done about it.
The case in the country is even stronger. It has been well known for years that one cannot keep stock if one is farming near an urban concentration or a big town because of the problem of stray dogs running about. It is very difficult now because people are coming out to the country miles away from the town and letting their dogs run loose quite happily in the middle of lambing ewes or calving cows or any other form of stock. I believe it is totally irresponsible of the Government to put a clause in this Bill which will

1041
abolish the licensing of dogs in order to save money. The problem is very great.
Noble Lords have put forward ideas. The new clause puts forward good ideas. Something must be done. It is up to the Government to produce very solid arguments as to why they are doing nothing and to change their minds and give either the local authorities the chance to deal with the problem, (as suggested in the next amendment) or bring forward their own proposals. They are shirking their duty in not doing anything about the menace we have concerning the growing army of dogs. There is no question of that and I hope the Minister will be able to give a considered reply instead of a straight rejection.
The Earl of Selkirk: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has said in broad outline. It is too easy for the Government simply to say that they will get rid of the dog licence. I accept that there is no defence of the existing licence; but I have heard the argument that if you licence dogs, you must licence horses and maybe cats. That is really not an argument at all. I do not want to take up time. What I should like to be sure of is that the Government are open to suggestions and prepared to argue about it. There is a big responsibility here. I do not know if it is true, but there is said to be something like 6 million dogs in this country and maybe 300 or 400 strays at any one given time, and probably 50,000 to 100,000 are put down each year.
We in this country are said to be fond of dogs. We have to deal with this matter centrally and I should like to have an absolute assurance from my noble friend that he is prepared to listen to arguments. As has been said, and as I have seen, cars have stickers which read,
"Dogs are for keeps, not just for Christmas".
That is not just incidental; it is a campaign that has been introduced because it is necessary. I hope that my noble friend will be able to meet us to some extent.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I referred to this matter on Second Reading so I shall be brief as I do not want to repeat myself. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this matter. As I pointed out, all the countries in the EC have dog licences and some countries charge as much as £20. I also pointed out that Northern Ireland has had a scheme for five years. The licence fee is £5 and they have dog wardens which have proved to be successful.
There is cruelty to dogs in this country with thousands of people in urban areas buying dogs but with no experience of owning them. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the dogs are abandoned when their owners get tired of them and they are sometimes thrown out on motorways. On Second Reading I gave examples of great cruelty to dogs. A young man roasted his dog in an oven because it made a puddle. He received a suspended sentence—he may have done a month inside—but he ought to have been given more than that.
Apart from cruelty to dogs there is also the difficulty that I and other noble Lords have experienced with sheep and livestock being worried
1042
by dogs. Livestock have been killed or maimed by stray dogs. One cannot always blame the dogs because they are maddened by hunger, having been abandoned. There must be some control.
As regards the fee, as I pointed out I cannot see why this should not be £10; though perhaps old age pensioners should be excluded and, of course, working dogs, guide dogs and sheep dogs. With such a fee the local authorities would have a considerable amount of money. The Government would have to arrange a scheme through the local authorities and give the authorities the amount collected from the licences. It should not go to the Treasury. However, there must be a better way so that all the proceeds of the dog licences could go towards paying for wardens.
With regard to discs, the best method is that used for greyhounds, where the number is tattooed on the ear. I have one or two greyhounds—in fact, my wife has them, not me—and that method is always used with racing greyhounds. In fact, I am not too keen on racing greyhounds and much prefer racing horses, but that is beside the point. I ask the Government to explain why they do not want dog wardens and why they do not want dog licences. That seems to be a most extraordinary point of view. I repeat, nearly every other country in Europe has dog licences. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, and as I said on Second Reading, there are 6 million dogs in this country and that means that there are a great many people who own dogs. The Government must do something to take note of the opinion among dog owners.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Irving. The problem of dogs has been with us for a long time, particularly stray dogs on the road, which are a menace both to themselves and to motorists. Something must be done about it.
We are all agreed that the present system is absolute nonsense. If a man has only one arm you do not improve the situation by cutting off the other. Therefore, I suggest that the present licence should be retained until we have something better on the statute book. I drafted an alternative form but hesitated to table an amendment in Committee because it contained an alteration of fee, and I understand that we are not able to do that. However, we might get round that by simply saying that the fee shall be whatever the Secretary of State decides.
An important point is that the licence should be obtained before a person buys a dog. In other words, the buyer must produce a licence before he gets his dog. At present the situation is absurd because a dog owner waits for 18 months or so—I do not remember the exact period—before paying anything. During that time the situation may change. He may become tired of the dog and let it go, which is often the case. Therefore, we must tighten up the situation.
I also make exceptions for working dogs, such as shepherds' dogs, guide dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for the deaf. Naturally, the owners of those must not be charged.

1043
My proposal is that the dog should wear a small disc on its collar, not more than three-quarters of an inch in diameter, with the year of the licence stamped on it and the owner's address. The dog can therefore be immediately identified. I hope to produce a draft amendment before we reach the Report stage. Meanwhile, I hope that we will not leave the coast completely clear by removing the present system.
Lord Dulverton: I congratulate Members on all sides of the Committee who have introduced this amendment. To abolish dog licences and to hope that the local authorities will provide and finance the operations of dog wardens without further ado indicates a strange misconception of the problem and of the situation. I regret most deeply this attitude of a government which I wholeheartedly support and which I had hoped and thought would have known better.
Arguments have been raised, some of them in another place, mainly based on such considerations as the abatement of nuisance and the damage that can be caused by uncontrolled and uncared for dogs. All those arguments are realistic. The spectre of rabies also has been referred to. I wish to raise another aspect. While supporting the arguments that have been advanced for a realistic fee on acquiring a dog, which the existing fee of 37p clearly is not, I wish to focus on the humanitarian aspect.
I declare an interest there both as a council member of the National Canine Defence League and as one who has loved and valued the companionship and the good service of dogs from a very early age, as many Members of the Committee have.
I believe it is a hackneyed phrase of Kipling:
"Give not your heart to a dog to tear".
Yet many of us do; and because of the love that we can give to a well-trained canine friend, and on the other side, the love, forgiveness and service that they can return to us, it was a very deep-feeling phrase that Kipling invented. Equally I say, "Do not tear the heart of your dog but train him to merit a good position in your heart". Every year these potential friends and allies of man are rejected, starved, maltreated or literally thrown into the ditch by those who have too thoughtlessly acquired them. I could tell horrifying stories of the maltreatment that goes on but I am not going to take up the time of the Committee. The stories would curdle the blood if I were to tell them. Some owners acquire their dogs without the means or the intention of developing the mutual care and trust that dogs can and do give if properly treated and trained.
In some ways statistics are a bore, but I will give some. It is estimated that there are 6 million dogs in the country, less than half of which are licensed. It is also estimated that 500,000 of them roam our streets creating various nuisances. Each year 200,000 of them are literally kicked out of the door by their owners. In addition, 80,000 strays are destroyed each year.
On the other side of the picture there were 1,200 road accidents involving stray dogs. A footnote to that comes from the Department of Community
1044
Medicine at Manchester, which puts the figure for dog-associated accidents at 54,000. My labradors would not have caused those accidents because we have an understanding together and they are trained. Each year 10,000 head of livestock are killed or maimed by dogs. If you give open licence to people who thoughtlessly acquire dogs or puppies, these awful figures will rise. If people really want them and really value them, then, in the context of present-day values, they will willingly pay a fee, whether it is £10 or more, which will much more than cover the cost of collection.
If Members of the Committee think back on the figures, there are 6 million dogs and, taking a £10 licence, if only half the owners pay the fee that will be £30 million. That, it is to be hoped, will finance measures to provide dog wardens and so on. If people are not prepared to stump up that much, they do not really want a dog. They acquire one totally irresponsibly and so will not care for it. It is as plain and as simple as that.
Of course there are the obvious exceptions such as guide dogs for the blind and the shepherd's marvellous sheepdog, and they possibly deserve special consideration. I say this as a former Master of Foxhounds to registered packs of hounds; my noble friend Lord Kimball is sitting in front of me and he may echo that possibility. I believe that a scheme could be worked out.
If you really want a dog, a tenner is nothing, and if you balk at that you clearly do not value your dog. It would cost much more than that to feed it. Without licences the numbers of uncared for, maltreated, sometimes tortured dogs and their unwanted puppies will add enormously to the fearful total of starved, maltreated and criminally uncared for dogs that also become nuisances. Those figures will rise drastically.
I hate to say so, but this is an issue which the Committee in its combined wisdom—and I know in many cases Members' own sympathy for the subject we are discussing—must insist upon even against Her Majesty's Government in this instance. I know the Committee will give consideration to what we have all said and I confirm that I wish to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irving.
Baroness Phillips: I should perhaps warn the Committee that if the verdict goes against what some people would like then we may see dogs lowered on ropes over the top of the balcony! They are much less bother than humans.
I wish to support what has been said in Committee so far and to emphasise that the onus is on the Government to explain the £3·5 million that it costs to collect the dog licence fees. There are many figures thrown about—6 million seems to be the flavour of the month. We heard that there were 6 million homosexuals yesterday and today we learn that there are 6 million dogs. It conjures up a fascinating and a tidy picture. Simply to say that because collection costs £3·5 million that is a reason for discarding the licence altogether is not really worthy of the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, said, those who love their dogs— happily they are the majority—spend a lot of money feeding them and

1045
they would not begrudge a registration fee, call it what you will.
It is important that we should be able to identify the dogs. If you live in inner London it is practically impossible to get out of your car without stepping into some of the residue left by animals which are mainly turned out by their owners. If there was a proper registration system there would be a much more responsible approach and it would be much easier to follow up the cases of cruelty that have been enumerated. I should like to see the Government give way on this: that would be a very generous and noble gesture.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that the Government will not give way on this; otherwise we shall be having canary licences, goldfish licences, pet bird licences. Thank goodness the Government are actually saying that they are going to take some controls off the backs of the people. That is what Conservative Governments are supposed to do, rather than imposing them. It is quite ridiculous to think that a dog licence is going to have the slightest effect on the way that people maltreat one form of animal or another. Those who are going to behave irresponsibly and cruelly will behave irresponsibly and cruelly; those who do not behave irresponsibly and cruelly will go on looking after their dogs properly.
Lord Somers: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Has he really examined the situation and found out what the difficulties are, because I have never heard such nonsense in my life?
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Somers, is entitled to his opinion. I may be talking nonsense: I may even be talking sense, and I hope that it is more likely to be the latter than the former. However, I still congratulate the Government on removing one form of impost from people's backs. The only thing that is more sensible than taking off an impost is taking off an impost that actually costs more money to administer than it brings in.
Lord Monson: I cannot agree with the noble Earl at all, because he would no doubt soon suggest abolishing the television licence. That would be just as logical.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I cannot get over the irresponsibility of the Government in putting forward this clause. After all, the Government some years ago raised the cost of the dog licence in Northern Ireland to £5 without any ill effects whatsoever; in fact quite the opposite. Surely what is good enough for one part of the United Kingdom is good enough for every other part? Abolishing the annual dog licence rather than increasing it to what is no more than the cost of dog food for one week will give the green light to those irresponsible yobs—one can only call them that—who give their children puppies for Christmas almost as toys and when the dear kiddies have tired of them—as happens all too often, I am afraid—put them (the dogs, not the children) into the car, drive to a motorway and throw them out of the window.
1046
Every animal rights organisation knows of tens of thousands of such incidents, and indeed we have just had some figures given from the government Back Benches. That being so, if the Government see this clause as a cynical means of obtaining the votes of genuine dog lovers, I can only suggest that they are barking up the wrong tree.
The Earl of Onslow: Did the rise in the cost of the dog licence in Northern Ireland have any effect on the treatment of dogs there?
Lord Monson: I have no information.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am glad that the debate is livening up. The difference between a debate in this Chamber on animals and a debate on the affairs of human beings is that human beings can crowd into the galleries and listen to what we are saying, and sometimes interrupt what we are saying. However, when we are talking about animals they are absent from our midst. I think that we ought to bring them in. For this debate the steps of the Throne should be crowded with dogs. We could sit them all down, see whether they have been properly trained and ask them what they have to say. It would be an experience. A few years ago I gave an address in Worcester Cathedral on Animal Sunday. After I finished all the animals trooped in, headed by a donkey. They received a blessing. It seemed to make them happier, somehow.
Leaving that humorous vision aside, I feel that not only this government but previous governments have had for some time a kind of mental block on this subject. They have been astonishingly immovable on the matter. When I first came to the House in 1974, I said that I would devote myself to animal welfare because there were so many people to talk about the problems of human beings and so few to talk about the problems of animals. I would be one of the few. In due course when noble Lords met me they asked how my animals were doing. I thought that the time had come to take an interest in video recordings or homosexuality or other subjects which were plaguing the minds of people. However, animal welfare is still my abiding interest in this Chamber and I hope to see something done in this field as eventually after 10 years I saw something done in 1986 regarding experiments on laboratory animals. That was a great achievement.
Why is it that no government have done what is so frequently done in relation to other problems? I refer to getting those with interests around the table to see whether there is a common approach to a problem so that measures can be agreed which the Government can consider implementing to the extent that a change in the statute law is required. We have never had that opportunity.
I began an inquiry in 1976 on behalf of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and produced the first comprehensive report on the dog problem for many years. While I was at it the Labour Government appointed an interdepartmental committee to do the same thing. Those two reports came together and there were remarkable similarities

1047
between the findings of them both. They both supported the retention of the dog licence fee as an indication of the stake which the dog owner was prepared to make in his companion animal and as a symbol of his personal interest in the welfare of animals.
However, I do not begin with the dog licence fee, although when one talks about dogs one nearly always gets on to the dog licence fee within the first few minutes. I start with the dog. It is the dog that is the problem. If one considers first of all how best to organise, manage and regulate the presence of the dog as a companion animal among our people, one sees that there are more dogs in human habitations than any other animal and that they are closer to human beings than any other animal. Certainly they are more numerous.
The dog in society is really part of the companionship of human beings. They are everywhere. They are in our homes and in other people's homes. We are inseparable. Some people make enormous sacrifices for their animals. Many people have lost their lives trying to save their dogs. It is quite moving to find that tenants of accommodation where dogs are forbidden will leave that accommodation rather than be parted from their dog. These are noble sentiments in human beings, yet the Government seem to be so indifferent in these matters.
When the reports came out they lay fallow for some time. One can understand that. It was 1977, a general election was approaching, and there was not much encouragement to do anything. Then the present Conservative Administration came to power in 1979 and inherited the problem. It has been the duty of this Government to attend to the matter throughout the whole of their period of office. They have had other priorities.
I understand about legislative priorities. Most governments have a legislation committee and a future legislation committee. The legislation committee deals with legislation of the Session. The future legislation committee deals with the business of the future. Ministers crowd around to claim time. They want a Bill. They have a Bill of some urgency or they have a Bill in the pipeline. It will be produced in due season. The planning of a whole Parliament must take place. I know the pushing and shoving that goes on between Ministers to get a place in the legislative programme. It is quite legitimate to have a claim on the time of Parliament for something which a Minister's department feels is desirable to bring forward. But nothing has happened to produce any legislation about dogs.
The Public Accounts Committee began to take critical notice of the dog licence fee remaining at its old level and becoming uneconomic to collect. It repeated the criticism that the system was absurd and that the present arrangement was neither a tax nor a fee but just a nuisance. So the Government have felt that it was easier to get rid of the licence fee and do nothing else than to do a great deal more and decide on a licence fee. That was the easy way out.
The proposal in the clause before us is not
1048
accompanied by any programme of dog control or regulation by local authorities. Nothing has been decided about what it should be like. Legislation is needed to implement some of the recommendations for local authorities to take powers which at the present time do not exist or are in the hands of the police. These matters have not been attended to. The Government have said, "Drop the licence fee and let local authorities find their own level", and presumably find their own money.
We know about the problems of local authority finance at the present time. We know all those difficulties. But we still have the dog problem. There is nothing more scandalous—and the position will become even worse—than to see pictures on television at Christmastime of the callous way in which people indulge their fancies in living animals and then want to throw them out within a few weeks because the children are tired of the animal, because it cannot be properly house-trained or because the children begin to make mischief with it. Something happens and out they go. If we neglect children, it is a crime. If we neglect a dog, it is not a crime unless there is cruelty to the animal.
There is a clause to abolish the licence fee before the Committee. We say that the licence fee should not be abolished until we have decided what else to do. This is the purpose of the debate. Will the Government for once in a way now tell us a little more honestly and comprehensively what they have in mind to do about the dog problem in future?
The people interested will be the dog societies—and there are plenty of them—the local authorities, the police and the environmentalists. All these people gave evidence both to me and to the interdepartmental committee. Out of the evidence to my informal inquiry and to the interdepartmental committee inquiry, came pretty well identical conclusions. If a conference was set up and we began to try to work something out, we might make some progress. The only occasion when consultation has taken place between the dog welfare interests and departments that I have known was when officials of the departments came along recently to discuss a proposed registration scheme. If there was a severe outbreak of rabies in the country it would change the whole attitude of the public towards the place of dogs in society. The public would be greatly scared and anxious if this country experienced rabies on the scale endemic in some Continental countries. Happily, we are clear of that. Care, discipline and observance of the rules keep us free. I appeal to the Government to be forthcoming and to say that there should be a round table conference to try to work out a scheme acceptable to the Government and agreeable to those who have to do a good deal of the work, the societies in particular.
I end on this note. As I have told noble Lords before, the Labour Government left the dog licence fee unaltered because at the time it was feared that many more dogs might be turned out on to the streets and somebody would have to deal with them or even destroy them. The people who destroy unwanted and stray dogs now are not the Government or local authorities but the voluntary societies, which are in business to stop cruelty to animals. It is the welfare

1049
element that is involved in this unhappy end to many thousands of dogs that either should never have been born or should be in the hands of loving people and enjoying a happy existence. If there were a strike of the voluntary societies and they said, "No more euthanasia here of your stray dogs. You must get rid of them yourself and, if there is undue cruelty, we shall prosecute you", war could be declared on cruel dog owners. One day there may be militants in the animal welfare movement, and one day perhaps I shall be one of them. Let us compel the country to face the dog issue more directly than it has done hitherto.
The problem can be averted if the Government will respond. We are not far apart. We all want to do something about dogs, we want to regulate their position in society and we want to do away with the nuisance that they constitute on pavements, in parks and in public places. We want dogs to have their proper place in society. This is possible. Indeed, Northern Ireland has shown how possible it is. They said that the real problem in Northern Ireland arose from dogs disorientated by the violence straying about in parks and killing sheep by the hundred. They said that it was the farmers in Northern Ireland who wanted the regulation of dogs. We have farmers in England too and we have different requirements in urban areas particularly. What is the element in Northern Ireland that has proved successful that would not succeed here?
I hope that the Government will consider this seriously. Let us bring an end to our differences and to the apathy of Government and the frustrations of animal societies and those interested in canine welfare. We may then make some progress. I hope that the Government will respond to the appeal in a forthcoming spirit.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Harvington: I wish to say a word to cheer up the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, particularly in regard to his comment at the beginning of his speech about dogs and going to Church. Our dog goes to Church every Sunday and has done ever since he was a puppy. He causes no trouble and behaves himself extremely well.
I turn to a serious point. Some years ago I was chairman of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain. The anxiety that dogs caused us by worrying sheep was very great. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise that to abolish the dog licence does not exactly help that point. I shall doubtless support the Government, but I hope that something will be done. Having seen my noble friend the Secretary of State for Wales recently, I am sure that he would echo my every word. The worrying by dogs on sheep farms is great. Something ought to be done to strengthen the hands of the police and to ensure that the worrying by dogs and the spoiling and ruining of pedigree flocks is taken in hand.
Viscount Ridley: The late Lord Goddard, when he was Lord Chief Justice, used to tell a story of how he had before him in court a man accused of sexual relations with a dog. When in due course the chap was found guilty by the jury the Lord Chief Justice
1050
said, "I had great difficulty in deciding how to make the punishment fit the crime in this case". When asked what he finally decided to do, he said, "I fined him £10 and I endorsed his dog licence". I realise that that penalty will no longer be open to the courts if the clause is passed.
I hope that the clause is passed. I do not believe that any amount of licensing will have the slightest effect one way or the other on the awful things that dogs may not do or do in Church or out of it. Furthermore, a registration fee as suggested by other noble Lords would seem quite unenforceable. I should have thought that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will have quite enough trouble steering through Parliament a poll tax on humans without starting on a canine one.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to have the chance to support the amendment, and to explain why I added my name to it.
This matter is of great importance to farmers, and has been made clear. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the problem of farming on the edge of a town. If I may declare an interest, we farm right up to the edge of the gardens of a town in the Midlands. As one would expect, we are unable to keep any livestock anywhere on at least half the farm, which is something of the order of 300 acres. We are pestered by stray dogs running across the farm and problems are caused to other farms. in the neighbourhood by sheep worrying, and so on. Any system of control that would help to reduce the problem must be supported. It seems to me that the registration of dogs is sensible, and a compromise needs to be worked out so that it should be self-financing if the fee is fixed at a reasonable level. That will provide the opportunity for an adequate dog warden service. Registration is designed to stop irresponsible ownership of dogs.
Another area which I should mention is guide dogs. Here I declare an interest because a member of my family works with a guide dog. It would be easy to exempt guide dogs from the proposed registration system because all guide dogs in the country, as I am sure Members of the Committee know, are registered already. All that would need to happen is that they would be exempt from the proposed licence fee.
The other section of the community which has been mentioned is one to which I should perhaps refer again, the postal delivery workers. I was surprised to see that within 10 years the number of postal delivery workers who have been bitten has increased by more than one-third. In 1976–77 there were just under 4,000 attacks; in the year to March 1986 the figure was almost 6,000. Sadly one in 20 postal delivery staff can now expect to be bitten by a dog in the course of work. I think all the speakers—
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, if he will permit me, whether they are licensed or unlicensed dogs which bite postmen?
Lord Carter: Interventions become more and more eccentric as the debate goes on. With the notable exception of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, all the

1051
speakers in this debate have impressed on the Government that they should reconsider their view. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, indicated at Second Reading that the Government were sympathetic to this problem. I hope very much indeed that the Minister will accept the arguments which have been put.
Baroness Blatch: There is no doubt that all the problems outlined by most of the speakers this evening are very real. What we have to discuss tonight is whether the licence, be it the continuation of the licence at its present rate or putting it up to £5 or £10, will sweep away all those problems. It is my view that it will never sweep them away. We shall still see cruelty to dogs, sadly, which is a punishable offence anyway.
Also determining the ownership of dogs is a problem. I come from a part of the country where dogs are born in back alleys and in the wild and they roam around estates with no owner. Who becomes the owner of those dogs? They are fed at back-doors by various people and kept alive in that way. That is a problem which will not be resolved by continuing the dog licence.
The other matter which bothers me about the suggestion to increase the licence fee is this. I am afraid that there is a more cynical side of me. I do not believe that a £5 fee is economic. I am not even certain that £10 is sufficient to tackle some of the problems which have been outlined during this debate.
We shall start with a plea, I suspect, from the other side of the Committee about exemptions: exemptions for old people, for people on social security, for one-parent families and so on. Before we know where we are we shall have a layer of bureaucracy across the country trying to administer a tax which will either have to go up or enjoy a higher and higher degree of subsidy. Therefore I believe that in this sense the licence fee is unworkable and still does not solve the problem.
There has been brought to my notice only today the case of a rather poor person in Oxfordshire who was found guilty not very long ago of not having a licence for his dog. He refused to pay the fine and was imprisoned. Such was the state of this gentleman in prison that the prison warders themselves, I understand, clubbed together to pay the fine for him. They thought how absurd it was to see this gentleman in prison alongside other criminals. Is that what you want to see if people default on paying the £5 or £10 licence fee, or 37½p for the licence? I am not so sure that it is.
We may all salve our consciences and feel good if we go away from here tonight having said that there will be a licence or that the licence will continue and it will be £5, £10, £15 or whatever is the going rate. What is the economic rate for hiring, first of all, the bureaucrats and, secondly, the wardens, the people to identify who is the owner of a dog in a house? Who exactly is the owner of a dog in a house—the son, the daughter, the mother, the father—when it comes to taking action?
My last point is on priorities. I agree with much of
1052
what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Cruelty to children is criminal and people jump up and down about that. Perhaps when it involves dogs people do not get so excited. I am not so sure that that entirely holds true, but there might be an outcry if very large sums of money and precious resources in this country were suddenly to be switched to this issue when we have much more pressing problems with drugs, alcohol abuse, cruelty to children and so on. All those areas are pressing for more resources and more attention from our police. What would people say if they were suddenly to switch their attention to this issue?
This does not entirely sweep away or answer the difficulties of cruelty to animals or of people unwisely buying dogs as presents at Christmastime for their children; a week later they abandon them. I am not convinced by anything which has been said tonight that paying £5 or £10 to purchase a dog will somehow make people more responsible. I am very bothered about a solution to the problem using this method. What we should be doing here and now is supporting the Government in their abolition of the licence.
Then there are those in local areas who have a particular solution. I am reminded of a holiday I had in Washington about eight or nine years ago when I found that stray dogs were rounded up by the local authority. They had to be claimed from the compound; if they were not claimed, they were put down. That might sound pretty cruel, but it made families who had dogs and cared about them very much more responsible about whether they were going to let them stray untagged and without care.
I hope the Committee will reject this amendment and support the Government in their attempt to tackle the problem. Then it will be for local authorities to determine a solution for their areas.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to support the many points made in favour of the amendment. I shall try not to repeat too many of them. I should like to see some form of registration, because, referring back to the sheep killed by dogs, most of the dogs do not have collars and therefore cannot be identified. I believe that a registration system would help.
There is also an increasing number of illegal dog fights. Registration could be a help in trying to trace the owners where these fights are found to be happening. Pedigree protection is another point which registration would help. I remember years and years ago going with a friend to buy a beagle. When we asked for the pedigree, the chap who was selling the dog said that we could have any pedigree we liked as long as we told him what we wanted. Registration must help in that way.
Another point is that if rabies should ever come to the country a system of registration could be of value in trying to combat it. In Newcastle I understand that there are a considerable number of strays and attacks on children. We have heard of the stray problem from many people, and many towns look forward to receiving revenues from realistic dog licences so that they can employ a proper dog warden system, which would be the alternative to registration. If the Government do not wish to introduce registration or increased dog licences, they should make certain that

1053
the legislation relating to the use of collars is enforced with bigger fines for those people who ignore the law. They should encourage the spaying of bitches. I do not know how they could do that but if one is to avoid an outbreak of unwanted dogs, something drastic must be done. Possibly the answer is to increase the licence to £10, to be paid on acquisition. Apart from funding the dog wardening system, this would make owners think twice before they bought a dog. When they had it they would respect it more if they had to pay a proper fee.
We should bear in mind that many of the worst cases are not bought dogs, but mongrels which are picked up or given to people. That would be an initial step towards reducing the dog population. Of course inevitably there would be exceptions and we can think of many of those.
Many organisations would support a registration scheme including the RSPCA, the vets, the Pets Society, the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU. They would all help to try to produce a better dog policy. The present licensing system is undoubtedly absurd. I hope that the Minister will at least come forward with some new suggestions for strengthening the present system or will at least do something if he wishes to avoid waiting for the amendment. The licensing scheme in Northern Ireland seems to have been successful; why could we not have it here?
7 p.m.
Baroness Strange: I wish to say a few words in favour of abolishing the dog licence altogether. It is so wonderful to think of abolishing any kind of tax, could it not just stay that way? I must admit that I have an interest to declare as I am the owner of a dog which came from a police pound. I found her on the last day of her life when she was about to be put down. She is very dear to me and I have had her for eight or nine years. Dogs are only kept for one week in police pounds.
If an enormous licence has to be paid to keep a dog poor people will not be able to afford it. Very often old age pensioners and poorer people rely very much on the friendship and love of their dogs and this measure would bring great deprivation to them. The dog has been man's oldest friend. As regards stray dogs no one would pay their licences anyway because either they would be wild stray dogs or they would belong to people who did not pay licences.
I once wrote a little poem in a child alphabet which went as follows:
"A for Anubis, the dog of the tomb,
Who gazes, prick-eared through the oncoming gloom,
O Ancient Egyptians, how wise that you knew,
Death has no fears when your dog waits for you".
Lord Stodart of Leaston: It is 25 years ago that I went as a very junior Minister to the Scottish Office and some 15 years ago that I went to the Ministry of Agriculture. On each occasion as I think is the habit—many other Members of the Committee will no doubt be able to confirm this—on my first day in those places the Permanent Secretary, the Sir Humphrey of his day, said, "How do you do? How nice to have you." Then on each occasion he said to
1054
the Private Secretary as he went out, "Get his in-tray filled quickly."
Rather curiously on each occasion into my in-tray, both in 1963 and in 1970, came a paper on dog licences. Therefore, I feel that I must congratulate the Government for at least biting on this bullet, but I also wish to say that I do not propose to support them.
Lord Crickhowell: I wish to bring the Committee a little nearer to the present and to tell my noble friend who has just sat down that the practice of bringing to the Government papers on dog licences has not grown less as time has passed. I have lost count of the number of occasions when Cabinet committees were convened and busy Ministers gathered to discuss interminably this particular proposition.
The truth of the matter is that the Government have now put forward their present proposal because all those interminable discussions by successive governments over very many years—we are dealing with one of the oldest taxes in existence—have failed to deal with the evils that have been described to the Committee today. I listened to the description of the evils but I have not heard any convincing argument put forward for the suggestion that increasing this tax and continuing the licence will actually get rid of the evils. It is not the cost or the payment that is the problem; it is of course the enforcement of the provision.
We heard from one Member of the Committee that the number of dogs biting postmen had increased. Those I imagine are about the most easily identified dogs of all. Most postmen actually get bitten on front doorsteps and presumably it is perfectly easy to identify the owners of the dog. Yet apparently nothing has been done to deal with that problem.
At present we have a law which specifies that dog owners must attach their name and address to the dog's collar. That is the law that we find so difficult to enforce at present. The fact that we pay 37 pence or £10 for the licence does not make the smallest difference to the difficulty of actually policing the requirement of having a name and address on a dog's collar.
My name was called in aid as one who would be concerned about sheep worrying and animal worrying in the countryside. I certainly am concerned about that, but I fear that the proposal that is before the Committee in the form of this amendment will not do very much to alleviate that particular evil. The reality of the issue is that we must find a method of enforcing the law and not simply put up a tax.
It has been suggested that the payment of a £10 licence fee will make people care more for their dogs and stop them buying dogs which they do not intend to care for. I find that argument very unconvincing. The parent who goes into a shop at Christmas and pays for a dog will be just as likely to pay for the licence fee at that particular moment. But there will be a great many other owners who, when it comes to renewing the licence fee—or those same families later on when they are short of money and they have to find another £10 for the licence fee—far from caring for the dogs will be the first to throw them out. Far from reducing the number of strays I fear that we

1055
shall increase the number of strays and that we shall find a very large number thrown out of houses and adding to our difficulties.
The truth of the matter is that successive governments have wrestled with this problem. They have always been reluctant to increase the licence fee because of the hardship that it will cause to many and because once one gets into the business of exemptions one enters a jungle and a maze from which there is no escape. It is through having considered it for so long and so often that the Government have come to the conclusion that this is not an efficient and effective way either of collecting a tax or of protecting dogs. Moreover it is because of that consideration that they have I am sure reached the right decision in deciding to do away with it altogether.
Lord Monson: Does not the noble Lord agree that anyone who can afford to buy dog food can afford to buy a £10 dog licence?
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that nearly all the Members of the Committee were expecting me to be collating a very short list of Members of the Committee who supported the Government. In fact I was surprised that the list became longer after a ringing endorsement from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. Then I thought that I was going to be able to add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, to my list but unfortunately he cruelly let me down at the last hurdle.
The discussion on this clause has demonstrated, as did the debate on Second Reading, the strength of feeling of the Committee when any issue comes before us which might be held to affect the control or welfare of animals. When the issue concerns dogs—which have such a special place in our society—that feeling and concern is even more marked. And in this—I would concede—the Committee has reflected the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the population of this country.
But, if I may, I would suggest to the Committee that in considering the nature and purpose of this clause, strong feelings—however commendable and worthy in themselves—are not necessarily the best guide towards reaching the right conclusion. We should look at what the clause says and what it does. Perhaps more important—and I think many of those who have spoken today would agree—we should look at what it does not do.
The clause before the Committee together with the repeals in Part IV of Schedule 6 to the Bill, would abolish the dog licence, first introduced in this country in 1796 as a tax on dogs. It also sets out as a consequence the circumstances in which a person shall be presumed to keep a dog for the purpose of Section I of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933. That is necessary because the present definition refers to licensing. The need for the consequential amendment to the 1933 Act illustrates what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding by many people.
1056
It is the hard, irrefutable fact that the dog licence does not contribute to or affect the very wide range of legislation which covers dog control and welfare. A subject often referred to this evening—by my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard, Lord Dulverton and Lord Harvington and by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Carter—was livestock and sheep. Even with comprehensive legislation to afford protection for farmers there are still terrible problems in that area.
I feel that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put his finger on the problem of enforcement. Abolition will not weaken in any way the requirement, for example, that dogs should wear collars and discs showing the owner's name and address when in a public place. However, the noble Lord, Lord Irving, dismissed that on the grounds of complications involving multiple occupation of residences. I am not entirely sure that I accept that argument. The clause will not affect the powers of local authorities to introduce dog control measures where they believe that to be appropriate. It will not affect the law relating to livestock worrying. I could go on. However, I believe that I have said enough to establish my point.
In putting the clause forward the Government are simply seeking to remove an unnecessary, inefficient and expensive anomaly—no more and no less. Members of the Committee who oppose our proposal would, I am sure, concede those points. They are indeed irrefutable. The case against seems to me to be based upon a number of assumptions, and I hope I shall be able to deal with those.
First, there is the assumption that the range of legislation to which I have referred should be reviewed and perhaps modified. I am by no means sure that those who hold that view are agreed upon what modifications are necessary. However, I must stress the obvious point once again. The Bill being considered by the Committee does not purport to amend the laws on dog control and does not do so. Whether or not there is a case for a major review—and I am doubtful that it is necessary—this is hardly the occasion for it, although in accordance with the commitment given in another place we have considered extending to all local authorities the powers to deal with strays currently reserved to the police and a limited number of authorities. As my noble friend Lord Belstead indicated during our debate on Second Reading, the need or otherwise for such a review should not stand in the way of the minor and realistic piece of good housekeeping which we are now proposing. Perhaps—here I speculate —the argument is that the laws are fine but that they are not properly enforced and the conclusion is drawn that a higher licence fee would provide the resources for better enforcement.
That is the second assumption that I should like to examine. It would of course be possible to increase the current licence fee of 37p per year. Such an increase could be made by an order under Section 36 of the Local Government Act 1966. That would certainly meet the criticism made by the Public Accounts Committee that the tax costs more to administer than it yields. But the Committee may wish to consider further possible consequences.

1057
Many—perhaps most—responsible dog owners would be very willing to pay £5 or £10 for a licence. It is indeed true that even that would be a small amount to pay compared with the total cost of keeping a dog. However, those responsible owners are not the problem. They are unlikely to cause suffering to their pets or allow them to stray or otherwise become a nusiance.
But what of the other less responsible owners who were mentioned by my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lady Blatch? They are hardly likely to be willing or take the trouble to pay an increased fee. Even if they did so. it would not make them any more responsible in their behaviour. The result is likely to be more costs for the responsible and a tendency towards an even higher level of evasion by the irresponsible. Moreover, some people have expressed concern that that course will lead to an even greater number of strays if dogs are abandoned to avoid the tax.
Those who advocate a higher fee accept that there would need to be exemptions for the blind, for the elderly, for those with working dogs and perhaps for those in receipt of social security payments. The potential list could be extended. The complexities of the system would become very great and it would be correspondingly more costly to operate.
If the fee were to be increased, how should the net revenue of such a scheme be used? Should it be used to enforce dog control measures? But why should that service be financed by a particular tax? Why should the reponsible pay to deal with the actions of the irresponsible? Should the proceeds be devoted to dog control purposes or should they simply go into the general revenues of local authorities? On the latter point. I simply observe that problems caused by dogs vary from locality to locality.
As regards localities, a number of Members of the Committee mentioned Northern Ireland, including the noble Lords. Lord Irving, Lord Monson and Lord Houghton of Sowerby and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. Since 1983 there has been a licence fee of £5 in Northern Ireland. There has also been a mandatory dog licensing scheme operated by district councils. Although the general view is that the arrangements have worked well, I understand that the number of stray dogs impounded by the authorities has remained roughly constant. However, the special arrangements for Northern Ireland were introduced against a background of problems which was recognised by the report of the working party on dogs in 1976 as being more serious than those in Great Britain.
I have already referred to the fact that problems arising from dogs vary from area to area. I remind the Committee that there is comparatively a very high level of livestock in the Province. Thus there is no reason why those provisions should be regarded as a precedent. The Government have put forward what they consider to be the right solution for Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned postmen who are bitten by dogs. I am sure that the Members of the Committee will be interested to know that one of the Ministers of the department met yesterday with
1058
representatives of the union of communication workers to discuss that very problem. Perhaps the most galling fact about postmen who have been bitten is that the first line of defence after a complaint is made is a letter which is written by the postmaster pointing out the complaint to the householder. The same postman who has been bitten must deliver the letter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Once bitten, twice shy!
Lord Hesketh: The Committee may also reflect on the fact that governments of all persuasions have—except for the abolition of the ½p—chosen to leave the licence fee unchanged since 1878. I suspect that they have been influenced by the considerations to which I have referred.
Finally I should like to deal with the question of registration of dogs, which it is assumed will contribute greatly towards solving the problem of dog control. That matter was brought to the attention of the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough. A national register of all dogs has been advocated, with a unique identity number for each dog—a Swansea licence centre for dogs, as the idea has been dubbed. One version suggests that the identity number would then be put on the animal's identity disc, which, I remind the Committee, must already be worn in a public place. The purpose of that defeats me. If the dog has a disc with the owner's name and address, why have a number? And if it is a stray without a disc, what is the value of the register?
The more sophisticated version of the idea, with commendable logic, recognises that weakness in the proposal and proposes that dogs should be permanently identified with their unique number, either by being tattooed or being implanted with a microchip from which the unique number could be read. I question whether such a proposal would be acceptable to the population at large, particularly when the implications are thought through. The creation of the database, the design of computer systems with a network of terminals throughout the country to input data, the requirement for people to notify the central record of changes of address and dog ownership, the procedures for dealing with queries—all those things add up to a massive and expensive bureaucracy. Costs, including the costs of tattooing or implanting would be very considerable, although no costs have been estimated by the proponents of the schemes. I doubt whether there could be exemptions for more needy owners.
Above all we should consider how such a scheme would be enforced. Should an owner not register his dog and choose not to have his dog tattooed or implanted, what would happen? Would dog wardens be empowered to stop an owner who was peaceably taking his or her dog for a walk in order to check that the animal had been tattooed or implanted?
I have said nearly enough. There are just two more points that I wish to make. The first is that at the start of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked why, if the Government can send a fleet 8,000 miles, they cannot deal with the problem of dogs. Personally I strongly feel that it is far easier

1059
to direct a fleet to sail 8,000 miles than to try to deal with the problem of dogs.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked whether the Government would listen. Of course the Government will listen. The difficulty is that the problem itself is very hard to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in a way summed up the problem by saying that a dog and a man have a very special and unique relationship and that the problem is not the licence but the dog. I entirely agree with him. Many solutions have been proposed and discussed in this debate but clearly something that has not been given a resounding endorsement is the dog licence itself.
I have said enough. It remains only for me to remind the Committee of what I believe are the three salient points. We have a ridiculous, unenforceable tax which it is neither necessary nor sensible to. increase. The tax does not relate to dog control Law nor affect it. As I have tried to explain, the registration of dogs would be complex, expensive and, I believe, equally unenforceable. The sensible conclusion is to carry out this minor piece of housekeeping which the Government propose.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give us a further explanation of one phrase in his speech; namely, when he said that the Government have the right solution for Great Britain. What is it?
Lord Hesketh: To do away with dog licences.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: As my name is on this amendment perhaps I may suggest to the Committee and to my noble friend Lord Hesketh in particular some answers to the points raised in defence of the Government's proposed abolition of the dog licence, which in my opinion hold very little water indeed.
The first point was raised by my noble kinsman Lord Onslow, who asked, "Why not register cats?" That is a stupid response to the problem. It is like saying that cats and dogs are the same. It is like saying that he and I are the same—but I shall not go down that road any further. It is the sort of remark that I might make.
Secondly, the point was made by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who seems to have given up the hunt—no, I now see that she has returned to the chase—and by my noble friend Lord Hesketh that there is a distinction to be made between dog control and welfare on the one hand and licensing on the other, and that the two aspects are different in law and in practice. That is nonsense. The practice of welfare cannot work without control, and control costs money. The next amendment, Amendment No. 124A, that we have suggested—and it is only a suggestion—would provide that money.
There is a growing tendency at the moment for the Government to ask local authorities—and indeed health authorities—to provide the same services as hitherto but to take away the funding. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lady Blatch. The Government's attitude to dogs is entirely similar. Moreover, when it comes to the law, why should one make the
1060
unfortunate, overworked police responsible for catching and collecting strays? Amendment No. 124A would relieve the police of that burden—or do the Government want to keep the police occupied, say, by bringing in stray dogs from my farm?
The next point was made by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Ridley as well as by my noble friend on the Front Bench and concerned enforcement. It is said that owners will not pay. They will pay because there will be enough money to enforce payment. When the licence only costs 37½p no one bothers to enforce payment—it does not pay to do so. The argument that owners will not pay is a ridiculous one. Its weakness was clearly pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson; namely, why not apply the same principle to the television licence? It is about as sound as that.
The next point was also made by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Blatch, who raised the question of bureaucracy. Have the Government considered having a once-and-for-all fee with the name of the owner of the dog on the document? That would cut down a great deal of bureaucracy and probably stop—though perhaps not entirely—the practice of buying a dog at Christmas and throwing it away at Easter.
The Government have made much play with the fact that, despite their intention to do away with the dog licence, the laws relating to the control of dogs and the nuisance that dogs cause—and indeed laws relating to the cruelty that can be inflicted upon them—will nonetheless remain. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Belstead at Second Reading. He also made the point that he would respect any views that noble Lords might put forward which indicated that the system of such control is in need of overhaul. It is certainly in need of overhaul, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk made clear. That is the crunch point: the system needs overhauling.
While I entirely agree that a 7/6d licence is totally out of date, in these two amendments we suggest a method of dealing with the problem. I very much hope that the Government will listen rather than force the Committee to make them listen by producing a detailed scheme at Report stage. If they do that, at least this matter will not have to go to Cabinet. Like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I hasten to add that at this stage we are only asking the Government why they wish to abolish the licence, and pointing out a possible alternative course of action the details of which will be spelled out at Report stage if the Government cannot make up their mind to come up with something better.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has in practice wound up the debate. I want to confine my remarks to one or two comments because I do not wish to keep the Committee away from dinner.
I am bound to say that I have seldom heard a more negative reply to a debate, which indeed was not as sensitive as the reply given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House at Second Reading. It contained not one constructive contribution toward dealing with the enormous problems of dogs which were revealed by many Members on both sides of the Committee tonight.

1061
As regards the question of Northern Ireland there appears to be a contradiction. On their own reckoning the Government have said that the system works well in Northern Ireland. The organisations which are most clearly in touch with the problem in Northern Ireland say that it is more than that. It has been very successful indeed. So there is a contradiction. The Government are prepared to operate the system in Northern Ireland but not to operate it here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that that will solve none of those problems. Of course it will not solve all of them, but, in providing a dog warden service, it is clear that one of the responsibilities of dog wardens would be to educate people in responsible dog ownership. In time, educating people in schools and other places will help to bring about an entirely different state of affairs. Tonight there has been revealed the scandalous situation that 1,000 dogs are being destroyed every day.
I do not believe that the noble Lord answered the question about identity of ownership. True and proper identification will enable action to be taken under the law in respect of the worrying of livestock, the attacks on individuals that were mentioned, the fouling of pavements, which is aesthetically unacceptable to most people including many dog owners, and indeed cruelty to animals themselves. Those problems cannot be dealt with unless there is a clear indication of the identity of the owner of the dog. It would be unfortunate not to test the feeling of the Committee tonight. I must therefore press the issue and put it to the vote.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Forester, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Gridley, L.

Bolton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harvington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Havers, L.

Butterworth, L.

Henley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hives, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnock, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Coleraine, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kimball, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cowley, E.

Knutsford, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Lyell, L.

Croft, L.

McFadzean, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Elibank, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

1062

Merrivale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Milverton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Moyne, L.

Stockton, E.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swansea, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trafford, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rochdale, V.

Winterbottom, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wynford, L.

Salisbury, M.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burton, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Dulverton, L.

Northfield, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Parry, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ferrier. L.

Feversham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gisborough, L.

Savile, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hampton, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Kearton, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
7.37 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 124A to 126 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No 126A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause;
("Planning control.
.—(1) Development shall not be carried out by the Commission for the New Towns in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State under section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981. unless—

(a) a binding contract for the development had been entered into by a development corporation, before the transfer date applicable to that development corporation; or

1063

(b) a development corporation had disposed of the land before that transfer date.

(2) In this section, 'transfer date' shall mean the date specified in the order made in respect of the development corporation by the Secretary of State under section 41(1) of the New Towns Act 1981.")
The noble Lord said: I realise that we have reached the appointed hour for dinner. I shall therefore be as brief as possible. The Town and Country Planning (New Towns) Special Development (Amendment) Order 1985 keeps intact planning consents given to new town development corporations under Section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 by conferring them upon the successor body, the Commission for New Towns. Previously the planning consents became void on the demise of the developing corporation. The order also enables the commission to pass on these consents to other developers, and these arrangements apply in all new town areas where development corporations are wound up after the coming into force of the order—that is, 15th November 1985.
The objections to the order are that it represents a significant diminution of new town local authorities' planning powers and that it excludes the interests of local people who would otherwise have an opportunity to participate in the planning process. Prior to the introduction of the order it had been thought that all approvals for development under section 7(1) which had not been acted upon by the development corporation would effectively lapse on their abolition. However, the order perpetuates these consents indefinitely and the local district council is unable to control the development of land as had been anticipated. Thus the order enables the commission to operate as its own planning authority and reduces the role of the local authority to that of a consultee. It is worth emphasising that affected districts had every expectation of assuming the role of planning authority; an expectation encouraged by the Government's constant reference to their desire for new town local authorities to be "normalised".
The order ensures that the development of land in new towns remains outside the normal planning process. Outside new towns the development of land is controlled in principle by a structure plan, approved by the Secretary of State; by a local plan adopted after public participation and complying with the structure plan and by planning decisions made in public by elected representatives on the basis of publicly-known applications and granted subject to appropriate conditions. It is argued that the specialness of new towns ceases with the wind up of the development corporations and therefore so should special restrictions on the normal freedom of the public and their elected representatives to control the development of their area in accordance with current policies and circumstances.
The Commission for New Towns is also an inappropriate body to make decisions on planning matters, particularly given the broad nature of the approvals which the Secretary of State had given to development corporations under Section 7(1) which covers large areas of land with a variety of final uses. Unlike the development corporation—which has wide terms of reference primarily aimed at the
1064
creation of a balanced and viable community and a local board to ensure that local interests are not overridden—the commission has a narrow brief geared to the managing and selling of property built by the former development corporation. It also has no local board and normally has only a small local presence.
In short, the special new town planning regime should come to an end with the winding up of the development corporation and that from then on the development of land should be subject to the usual planning process.
The amendment would restore the situation that existed prior to the 1985 order. It is a commendable amendment. I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration because it gives power back to the local authorities. That is not a lot to ask for bearing in mind the powers that the Bill will remove from them when it becomes an Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would be to remove powers given to the Commission for the New Towns in 1985 under an amendment to the Special Development Order 1977 which provides a framework for planning approvals for new towns. Under Section 7(1) of the New Towns Act 1981, the Secretary of State may, after due consultation, approve development proposals put forward by new town development corporations. Prior to 1985 whenever the Commission for the New Towns took over the remaining responsibilities of a development corporation, it was unable to carry through outstanding development schemes which had already received Section 7(1) approval apart from those schemes which were already in progress, where binding commitments had been entered into or where the development corporation had disposed of the land prior to the transfer date. This seriously restricted the ability of the commission to complete the task of rapidly and effectively rounding off development in the towns it inherited.
The Government therefore concluded in 1985 that the commission should be given the power to inherit and carry through Section 7(1) approvals obtained by former development corporations. This restored to the commission powers which it had previously held prior to 1977.
I am aware that there has been some local authority opposition to this extension of the commission's power. In our view, the arguments in favour of the extension remain valid. It is particularly important to ensure that, as the development of a new town comes to an end, the confidence of investors in the continuing availability of land for development, including housing, is maintained. It is also essential to safeguard public investment in infrastructure which would not be fully utilised if developments, which had been previously approved, did not go ahead.
We do not accept the view that the Commission for New Towns is an inappropriate body to exercise full power. It will be implementing developments previously drawn up by the development corporation and approved by the Secretary of State. There is no reason to think that the commission, in exercising

1065
these powers, will have any less regard to the interests of the local community than the former development corporation. The effect of the amendment would be seriously to impede the process of rounding off developments in the new towns and I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I shall be very brief because I am sure we shall all benefit from an earlier night than we have been having recently. I do not think that the answer is satisfactory. If I cast my mind back, local authorities that had new towns within their areas were always led to believe (and it has never been denied) that they would eventually assume the powers of the new town authorities.
I do not know whether the Minister will answer me now or whether he will think about it at a later stage; but he says that the powers were given back to the new commission. Can he tell those few Members of the Committee present when he expects the necessity for those powers to be withdrawn and placed with the local authority? That would be nothing but an interminable recipe for conflict. I believe that as time passes the friction will become worse because people who arc elected at local level to deal with such matters as planning in their area will expect to be allowed to get on with the job. If the Minister tells us that it is not a permanent situation—that the local authorities can live with some hope that they will be given the total planning responsibilities for their areas that would be well received; and the Government's intentions, too, would be well received.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. raises an important point. I do not necessarily agree with him; but before I comment more fully, this is something that I should like to consider in a little more detail and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: On that basis, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I give notice that if the answer is not satisfactory to the areas involved I shall probably come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 126B not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) (Variation) Order 1988
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under paragraph 1(3) of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Nurses, Midwives
1066
and Health Visitors Act 1979 the UKCC are required to submit to the Secretary of State for approval any variation to the scheme for the election of members to the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. Like the original scheme the variation scheme is subject by paragraph 1(4) to Affirmative Resolution.
Elections are held every five years. The first members of the national boards were appointed on 15th September 1983 as a result of the first election. It is proposed that the 1988 elections are held in accordance with the variation scheme now under consideration. The variations take account of the single professional register which has been brought into existence since 1983; the practical experiences resulting from the first election following an evaluation of the elections by the UKCC; and wide consultation on a paper produced as a result of the work of a working group established by the central council in collaboration with the national boards to look at arrangements for the 1988 elections. Those consulted included health authorities, regional and district nursing officers, colleges of education offering nursing courses, government departments and agencies, professional journals, trade unions, professional associations and other special interest groups and the private sector.
The order gives effect to variations to the original electoral scheme approved by an order of the Secretary of State in 1982. I hope that the order receives the approval of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the order because it meets the wishes of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting to improve the system of democratic control of its organisation. Two major changes are involved. In 1983 the registrar and chief executive of the UKCC was the returning officer, and the director for professional conduct was the deputy returning officer. This was felt to be a slightly sensitive matter in so far as it was a potential for an officer of the council to rule the nomination as invalid. In 1988 both the returning officer and the deputy returning officer are staff of the Electoral Reform Society which is taking a larger role in the conduct of the election. The registrar of the UKCC will have responsibility for confirming qualifications and registration matters and for definitions of the term "practising". This term is defined in the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
The second major effect is that in 1983 there was no effective register, so those wishing to vote had to opt in. On the appropriate date all those who had done so were sent a ballot paper for the country and professional category requested by the opting-in form. With the introduction of periodic registration the UKCC now has an effective register and this will be used as the electoral roll. It therefore removes the need for most people to opt in. Those nurses, midwives and health visitors who have ineffective registration because they are not in paid employment

1067
may opt in to the election. All those who are sent ballot papers will receive all three professional category voting papers but only one may be used. The individual votes in the professional category appropriate for his or her own qualification, and those with more than one qualification, may choose which category to vote in. Voters will be sent voting papers for the appropriate country in which they have their permanent address.
Individuals who wish to vote in a different country election, either because they consider it their permanent home or they work in another country, such as those with addresses in the borders of Wales and Scotland, may exchange their voting papers. Overseas people will receive all 12 voting papers and choose the country they consider appropriate. The council will be circulating about 550,000 voting papers.
I am satisfied that the new system is an improvement and fully meets the wishes of the UKCC. I have one question to put to the Minister: can he give the total cost to the Exchequer of the changes that are made in the order?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take the view, as did my predecessor, that the details of the scheme are very much a matter for the profession. The outcome of the first election is evidence that the scheme is workable and can produce satisfactory results. There has been co-operation and goodwill between the UKCC and the boards in the development of the scheme. I am not aware of any particular antagonism towards the election scheme from the profession.
The choice to have an elected element in the membership of the national boards and therefore indirectly on the council, is primarily in response to the desire of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. It seems reasonable therefore that the professions should fund the costs of the election as part of their wish to control their own affairs. The cost will be borne entirely by the UKCC which is funded by the fees paid by the professions. The cost is expected to be in the order of £325,000. I confirm that there is absolutely no cost of the Exchequer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eight o'clock.

  "TASK FORCE TREES" PROGRAMME
  "TASK FORCE TREES" PROGRAMME
  BIRMINGHAM PUB BOMBINGS
  BIRMINGHAM PUB BOMBINGS
  HUMAN INFERTILITY
  HUMAN INFERTILITY